Dr. Allan Rosenbluth

The applicant, a 69-year-old woman, was injured when the city bus she was riding stopped suddenly.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, but the insurer terminated medical benefits and refused to pay for housekeeping.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered physical and psychological impairments as a result of the accident, aggravating pre-existing conditions.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for physiotherapy, psychological treatment, medical assessments, and housekeeping expenses.

The insurer's argument that the applicant was disentitled to benefits for failing to attend a DAC assessment was rejected due to defective notice.

The applicant was awarded her arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant applied for arbitration, claiming ongoing benefits due to chronic pain and depression that rendered him unable to perform his pre-accident maintenance job.

The insurer argued the applicant was not disabled and that any impairment was due to pre-existing factors.

The arbitrator found the applicant's pain complaints genuine and supported by medical evidence, concluding he suffered from a chronic pain condition with a significant psychological component.

Applying the thin skull rule, the arbitrator held the accident materially contributed to the disability.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, interest, and arbitration expenses, as well as partial chiropractic expenses, but the claim for a recliner chair was denied.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for over 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, and an arbitrator upheld the termination, finding the appellant did not meet the post-156 week test of being continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the arbitrator erred in law by focusing on whether she suffered a head injury, relying on hearsay evidence, and failing to properly analyze suitable employment options.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding the causation issue was properly before the arbitrator, the reliance on hearsay was permissible, and the arbitrator's conclusions were supported by the evidence.

The applicant was injured when she fell on a TTC bus.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits and various medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The insurer terminated income replacement benefits based on a multidisciplinary DAC assessment.

The arbitrator found the applicant to be a poor historian prone to exaggeration and deceit, and preferred the evidence of the IME and DAC assessors over her treating physiatrist.

The claim for ongoing income replacement benefits was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove she was substantially unable to perform her duties as a housekeeper and nanny.

Claims for psychological treatment, massage therapy, a lumbosacral support, and some taxi fares were allowed, while the remaining claims were dismissed.

The applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits for 156 weeks before the insurer terminated them.

She sought reinstatement of weekly income benefits and housekeeping expenses, as well as reimbursement for prescriptions.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome and depression, and that her honest belief in her disability rendered her incapable of returning to work, entitling her to ongoing weekly benefits.

However, the arbitrator found she was capable of performing more household tasks than she admitted and reduced her housekeeping benefits to five hours per week.

Prescription expenses were awarded in full.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, physiotherapy expenses, and the cost of a psychological assessment.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant could return to his work as a piece-work upholsterer.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and residual physical problems that substantially disabled him from performing the high-speed, repetitive tasks of his employment.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay the claimed benefits, along with a special award under section 282(10) of the Insurance Act for unreasonably withholding payments.