3 total
Applicant awarded post-104 week income replacement benefits due to complete inability to work from chronic pain.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs).
The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.
The Tribunal found the applicant credible and preferred the evidence of her medical experts, concluding that her chronic pain and psychological impairments prevented her from returning to work.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay IRBs of $400 per week from October 4, 2016, ongoing, plus interest.
Court refused additional defence psychiatric IME as unnecessary and potentially oppressive.
In a motor vehicle personal injury action, the defendants brought a motion requiring the plaintiff to attend a further independent medical examination by a psychiatrist after several prior defence examinations had already been conducted.
The defence argued the examination was necessary following a neuropsychologist’s suggestion that the plaintiff’s symptoms might reflect a conversion disorder.
The court held that the defendants already possessed extensive medical evidence from numerous specialists and that the proposed examination appeared aimed at developing a new diagnostic theory rather than responding to an issue requiring further investigation.
The evidentiary basis for the additional psychiatric examination was insufficient, and the request risked becoming a fishing expedition.
Given the number of prior examinations and the intrusive nature of another assessment, the motion was dismissed.
Insurer ordered to pay arrears, interest, and a $39,295 special award for unreasonably terminating income replacement benefits.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the insurer.
The insurer subsequently terminated his weekly income replacement benefits.
The arbitrator found that the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by ignoring overwhelming medical evidence of the applicant's ongoing cognitive impairment and relying on flawed reports that supported termination.
The arbitrator characterized the insurer's conduct as wilful blindness.
The applicant was awarded $64,177 in arrears of income replacement benefits, $48,096 in interest, a special award of $39,295 under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act, and $42,908 in arbitration expenses.