David Carranza

The appellant appealed an arbitration decision finding she was precluded from proceeding to arbitration because her paralegal representative had entered into a binding settlement on her behalf.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's findings that the representative had ostensible authority to settle the claim and that the two-day cooling off period began when the appellant reviewed the settlement notice with her representative.

Because the appellant failed to notify the insurer of her rejection of the settlement within the required time frame, the settlement was binding.

The appeal was dismissed.

At a pre-hearing discussion for a statutory accident benefits dispute, the insurer sought an order requiring the applicant to serve all expert reports at least 90 days prior to the arbitration hearing, rather than the 30 days required by Rule 39 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The arbitrator declined to make the order, noting that increasing the notice period would delay hearings, increase motions for relief, and undermine the principle of expeditiousness.

The parties were ordered to comply with the standard 30-day notice period under Rule 39, though they were encouraged to voluntarily exchange documents earlier.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed housekeeping benefits, acupuncture treatment, and a special award.

The arbitrator found the applicant was entitled to $3,676 for housekeeping expenses, as she suffered a substantial inability to perform her household tasks for a period following the accident.

The claim for further acupuncture treatment was denied because the medical evidence emphasized regular exercise rather than passive therapies.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's denial of benefits was supported by an expert opinion and was not unreasonable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

Her paralegal representative negotiated a full and final settlement with the insurer.

The applicant later refused to sign the release, claiming she had not authorized the settlement amount.

The arbitrator found that the representative had ostensible authority to settle the claim and that a binding agreement was reached.

Because the applicant failed to rescind the settlement in writing within the two-day cooling-off period prescribed by the Settlement Regulation, she was bound by the settlement and precluded from proceeding with her arbitration.