D. Berbrayer

The applicant sought payment for two physiotherapy treatment plans following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans, arguing that they included treatment for a right rotator cuff injury that occurred in 2023 due to moving and heavy lifting, not the accident.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that medical evidence, including ultrasound and physiatry reports, confirmed the rotator cuff tear was an intervening, non-accident-related injury.

Because the treatment plans did not differentiate between accident-related and non-accident-related injuries, the applicant failed to prove the plans were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing he should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain, noting a lack of specialist referrals, imaging, or functional impairment.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of a psychological condition caused by the accident, relying on s. 44 assessments that concluded the applicant did not meet DSM criteria for any psychological diagnosis.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, he remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, rendering the disputed treatment plans moot.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a live virtual psychiatric assessment with Dr. D. Berbrayer.

The plaintiff had refused, arguing the defendants had previously opted for a paper review and that no new evidence warranted a further assessment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the necessity criterion was met due to a recently filed expert report by the plaintiff, and that trial fairness dictated both parties have an equal opportunity to present evidence.

The court also found no prejudice to the plaintiff and that granting the request would not delay the trial.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying him income replacement benefits beyond 104 weeks post-accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made errors of fact and law regarding his pre- and post-accident employment, medical restrictions, and the legal test for post-104 IRBs.

The tribunal found no errors of fact, noting the applicant returned to work at a reduced capacity and failed to provide medical evidence restricting him from working full-time.

The tribunal also found no error of law, as the adjudicator properly assessed the applicant's disability and employment competencies in a real-world setting.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The Applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming that chronic pain syndrome prevented him from working full-time.

The Applicant had returned to his pre-accident role but at reduced hours.

The Respondent denied the IRBs, arguing the Applicant did not meet the post-104 test of suffering a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the Applicant suffered from chronic pain, he had successfully returned to work at two-thirds capacity and maintained his status and reward.

The Tribunal preferred the Respondent's medical evidence that the Applicant was not medically restricted from working and would benefit from workplace accommodations and exercise.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff to attend a further defence orthopedic examination.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court applied the seven-factor test from Bonello v. Taylor, 2010 ONSC 5723, for ordering further examinations.

The court noted that the defendants had previously chosen a physiatrist for examination despite knowing the plaintiff would rely on an orthopedic surgeon's report.

No significant change in the plaintiff's condition was demonstrated, and the defendants' own physiatrist's addendum report confirmed his original opinion remained unaltered, even after new information about a subsequent accident.

The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate the necessity for a second physical examination and dismissed the motion.