David G. Merner

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing to compel the defendants to produce documentation obtained from non-parties pursuant to a prior court order.

The defendants responded that they had not yet received any documents from the non-parties and agreed to provide them to the plaintiffs in due course once received.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion as premature, without prejudice to their right to bring it back if the defendants fail to produce the documents after receiving them.

The defendant requested a case conference to compel the plaintiff to sign a medical authorization form prior to an independent medical examination with a psychiatrist.

The plaintiff's counsel failed to attend the case conference despite being notified.

The court held that the issue could be determined expeditiously at a case conference under Rule 50.13.

The court ordered the plaintiff to execute the authorization, noting that it simply sets out the plaintiff's obligation to provide an accurate medical history and list of injuries, which is standard and necessary for the examiner to produce a report under Rule 53.03.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits, alleging he had a legitimate contract of employment to commence work as a truck driver shortly after the accident.

The insurer disputed the existence of the contract.

The arbitrator reviewed the evidence, including the financial viability of the alleged guaranteed weekly wage in a seasonal industry, and found the applicant's evidence improbable.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant failed to establish the existence of a legitimate contract of employment entered into prior to the accident, and dismissed the claim.

The insurer sought to appeal an interim arbitration order requiring it to produce notes and memoranda concerning its decision to deny occupational therapy benefits.

The insured had claimed a special award for unreasonable withholding of benefits.

The Director's Delegate denied leave to appeal, noting that appeals from interim orders are generally prohibited under Rule 46.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code to avoid delay and minimize costs.

The Delegate found no clear error or compelling reason to intrude on the arbitration process, as the production order was limited in scope and relevant to the specific claim.