Dr. Bartol

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs) and an occupational therapy assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant could work in alternative occupations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a 63-year-old self-employed hairdresser with significant physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable alternative employment.

The Tribunal awarded the IRBs and the cost of the occupational therapy assessment, along with interest.

The applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 and costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic treatment and PRP injections following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that while the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing right shoulder rotator cuff tear, the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The evidence indicated that past chiropractic treatment had not been effective in reducing pain, and there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of PRP injections for the impairment.

Both claims for medical benefits were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The accident occurred in June 2011, and the plaintiff suffered a stroke one month later.

The action was commenced in July 2015.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was suspended due to the plaintiff's incapacity to commence a proceeding and that the claim was not discoverable until 2015 when a medical report causally linking the stroke to the accident was explained to her.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding both the plaintiff's capacity to commence a proceeding and the date of discoverability, given conflicting medical evidence about her cognitive impairments.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limits, arguing that a pre-existing medical condition prevented her maximal recovery.

The applicant claimed funding for an in-home assessment and additional physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition that would take her outside the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the independent medical examiner and the applicant's family doctor over the pain clinic records.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an arbitration decision denying his claims for statutory accident benefits, including housekeeping, medication, chiropractic expenses, a whirlpool spa, and weekly income benefits, as well as a special award and arbitration expenses.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the arbitration process and agreeing with the arbitrator that there was insufficient medical evidence to support the appellant's claims.

The Delegate also confirmed that business losses and replacement labour costs are not payable as weekly income benefits or rehabilitation expenses under the Schedule.

No appeal expenses were awarded to either party.