Dr. Asha Bhardwaj

The applicant sought entitlement to non-earner benefits and two physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in her testimony, a lack of supporting medical documentation, and surveillance evidence showing her engaging in various activities such as driving and shopping.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, finding the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on insurer examination reports that concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and should continue with a self-directed home exercise program.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a low-speed rear-end motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits, including caregiver, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits, as well as a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The insurer denied the claims and sought repayment of an alleged overpayment.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's physical presentation of torticollis was inconsistent with extensive video surveillance showing her performing normal daily activities.

Relying on expert evidence that her symptoms had a psychogenic overlay and did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under the AMA Guides, the arbitrator dismissed the claims for ongoing caregiver and housekeeping benefits, and the catastrophic impairment designation.

The applicant was awarded a modest amount for attendant care during the first 104 weeks.

The insurer's claim for repayment was dismissed due to inadequate notice, and the applicant's claim for a special award was denied.

The insurer appealed an arbitration order that reinstated the insured's caregiver benefits and imposed a special award at the maximum rate.

The insurer had suspended benefits after the insured refused to attend two sets of multi-disciplinary medical examinations.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's finding that the requested examinations were not reasonably necessary given the extensive medical information already available, including Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) reports supporting the insured's disability.

The Director's Delegate also confirmed the special award, finding that the insurer acted unreasonably in ignoring the medical evidence and the concerns of the insured's treating practitioners regarding the excessive assessments.