Dr. Andrew Kertesz

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit (NEB), medical benefits, and travel expenses.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that his pre-existing conditions were the primary cause of his impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the NEB, relying on medical evidence that his physical and psychological impairments continuously prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also approved the physiotherapy treatment plan and partial travel expenses, but denied the psychotherapy treatment plan, an award for unreasonable delay, and costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for the first 104 weeks.

She sought post-104-week IRBs, arguing she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to cognitive and physical impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had successfully worked as a restorative aide for approximately 10 months post-accident, working full-time and overtime hours.

Relying on this work history and the preferred expert medical and vocational evidence, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The claims for IRBs, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits and various treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing that an intervening accident broke the chain of causation and relying on its own independent medical examinations.

The Tribunal found that the subject accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's physical injuries, but not her psychological complaints.

The Tribunal awarded partial attendant care benefits for meal preparation and laundry assistance, and approved several treatment plans including occupational therapy, a cognitive assessment, and vestibular physiotherapy.

The Tribunal also ordered a 10 per cent special award against the respondent for unreasonably maintaining the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline despite knowing she had sustained a concussion.

The applicant, a wheelchair user, was injured when a bus stopped suddenly.

The insurer terminated attendant care and housekeeping benefits after 104 weeks, finding she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant brought a motion for interim benefits pending arbitration.

The arbitrator found the applicant established a prima facie case that she suffered a total and permanent loss of use of her left arm, meeting the catastrophic impairment definition.

The arbitrator also found urgency and hardship, as the applicant required additional attendant care following her husband's death to avoid moving to a long-term care facility.

Interim attendant care benefits of $1,117.25 per month were awarded, but interim housekeeping benefits were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 week income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant continued to operate his horse farm.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from severe chronic pain and depression, rendering him completely unable to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited, including his pre-accident work as a truck driver and farmer.

The arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits at $400 per week, interest on overdue payments, and a $25,000 special award against the insurer for unreasonably terminating benefits without sufficient medical or vocational investigation.