Cindi Goodfield

The plaintiff sued two physicians for medical malpractice, alleging they negligently failed to diagnose and treat him for Lyme disease following a suspected tick bite in April 2010.

The emergency room physician diagnosed cellulitis and prescribed antibiotics, while the family physician later treated the plaintiff for various ongoing symptoms but did not diagnose Lyme disease.

The court found that neither physician breached the standard of care.

Furthermore, the court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was bitten by a tick or that he actually contracted Lyme disease.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an automobile garage owner.

The respondent insurer terminated the benefit and relied on surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's self-reported limitations.

The adjudicator found the applicant's medical evidence relied heavily on his self-reports, which were undermined by surveillance showing him walking without a cane, driving, and bending without visible difficulty.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming he suffered a catastrophic impairment due to psychological and chronic pain issues.

The insurer denied the benefits, relying on assessments that found only mild impairments and suggested symptom exaggeration.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating psychiatrist and found the applicant suffered a marked impairment in adaptation, qualifying as a catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, finding the applicant completely unable to engage in suitable employment, as well as attendant care, housekeeping benefits, and the cost of a chronic pain assessment.

The applicant sought to proceed to arbitration for income replacement benefits and housekeeping and home maintenance benefits after the two-year limitation period had expired.

She argued the limitation period should be tolled because she lacked capacity to instruct counsel due to severe substance abuse and cognitive impairments.

The arbitrator found the applicant was an unreliable historian and failed to rebut the presumption of capacity, precluding her claim for housekeeping benefits.

However, the arbitrator found the insurer's notices terminating income replacement benefits were confusing and not clear and unequivocal, particularly given the applicant's extremely low cognitive abilities.

Therefore, the limitation period for the income replacement benefits claim did not commence, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration on that issue.