A Court of Queen’s Bench justice reserved his decision Wednesday in a case about a pending hip surgery, the wait time, and who will pay for it.
Court was told the applicant, Hilary Eccleston, was faced with a four-year wait for arthroscopic hip surgery in the public system.
An application was filed in court, stating her insurance company should cover the cost of over $28,000 to have the procedure done at a private clinic in the Halifax area.
Eccleston was injured in a car crash in May 2015, court heard, and an MRI in June 2016 showed she suffered a laberal tear.
She was placed on the public wait list in December 2017.
READ MORE: Union ‘very concerned’ after New Brunswick nurse allegedly gave women drug to induce labour
Emma Neynens, the lawyer representing Eccleston, says her client was told the operation could be done at the private clinic in two to three months.
Court was told there were two other public options in the Halifax area, citing waits there at 302 or 751 days, but Neynens said her client may not be eligible for those. She was referred to Halifax by surgeons in New Brunswick.
Wawanesa Insurance, the respondent, asked that court dismiss the request.
Christa Bourque, the lawyer representing the company, questioned the cost of the procedure for something that would otherwise be covered by medicare, the necessity of the surgery given that it’s four years after the crash, and also questions if the injury was in fact caused by the crash.
Neynens said the injury can worsen with time, increasing the chances of a hip replacement.
- Canadian man dies during Texas Ironman event. His widow wants answers as to why
- ‘Sciatica was gone’: hospital performs robot-assisted spinal surgery in Canadian first
- Canadians more likely to eat food past best-before date. What are the risks?
- Treatment from female doctors leads to lower death rates, study finds
Another question raised was the method of hearing.
READ MORE: News of investigation into Moncton nurse accused of inappropriately inducing labour shocks community
Bourque asked if an action hearing (a trial) would be more appropriate than the application hearing, allowing for those involved in the case, mainly doctors, to be cross-examined.
The justice reserved his decision and said it would be handed down “in due time.”
Neither lawyer took questions from the media about the case.
A statement from David Hultin, a senior communications specialist for Wawanesa Insurance, said not commenting on claims is a typical procedure.
“We take our obligation to protect the interests and privacy of our policyholders seriously,” the statement says. “For this reason, we do not publicly comment on the specifics of any claim, nor do we discuss matters currently under dispute.”
Comments