Colleen L. Burn

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and two treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on multiple independent medical examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the tests for both pre-104 and post-104 IRB, as he suffered from a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, noting that the respondent's assessors evaluated the applicant in silos and failed to provide an integrated assessment of his physical and psychological impairments.

The treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment were deemed reasonable and necessary.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, an in-home functional assessment, and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's impairments were a natural progression of pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the accident aggravated the applicant's pre-existing physical and psychological impairments, making the proposed treatment plans reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the treatment plans with interest, but declined to order a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer's initial denial was not unreasonable based on the medical evidence it had at the time.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and medical and rehabilitation benefits for custom orthotics, chiropractic treatment, and massage therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting that his pre-accident activities were already severely limited by chronic pain and reliance on his wife for activities of daily living.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary, and accepting the respondent's insurance examination evidence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a mental or behavioural disorder.

The insurer's assessors concluded she had only a moderate impairment, while her own assessors found a marked impairment in the area of adaptation.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's inability to work was too narrow a basis for finding a marked impairment in adaptation.

Considering her overall ability to cope with pain and manage daily activities, the arbitrator concluded the applicant had only a moderate impairment in all four areas of function and therefore did not meet the definition of catastrophic impairment.

The appellant appealed an order striking the jury and the dismissal of her action.

The court held that appellate review of an order striking a jury is very limited and found that the trial judge considered the relevant factors, applied correct principles, and exercised discretion properly.

The court also upheld the rejection of the medical expert evidence, accepting that the trial judge was entitled to find the opinions were based on incomplete information from the plaintiff and were not presented objectively.

The additional grounds of appeal lacked merit.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for fitness classes, chiropractic and massage treatments, acupuncture, and housekeeping expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain and reasonably required the fitness classes and ongoing chiropractic and massage treatments.

The claim for acupuncture was also allowed, as the applicant established a prima facie case for its reasonableness.

However, the claim for housekeeping and home maintenance expenses was dismissed because the evidence, including a functional capacity evaluation, showed the applicant was capable of performing the tasks by pacing herself.

Finally, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay a special award of $350 for unreasonably withholding chiropractic benefits pending dispute resolution.