Dr. A. Sekyi-Otu

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied a chiropractic treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she suffered from psychological injuries, chronic pain, and neurological issues that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a psychological injury or chronic pain condition, noting the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury, making her subject to the $3,500 funding limit, and dismissed the claims for the treatment plan and interest.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent insurer.

The respondent terminated IRBs based on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's essential tasks of employment were sedentary and that the medical evidence did not support a substantial inability to perform those tasks.

The applicant's claims of physical and psychological impairments preventing work were contradicted by medical records and her ability to complete a post-secondary program.

The application for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2007 and sought ongoing income replacement and housekeeping benefits, claiming the accident exacerbated a pre-existing right knee injury.

The insurer terminated benefits in February 2008 based on medical assessments.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and symptom magnification.

Relying on medical experts, the arbitrator concluded the 2007 accident only temporarily exacerbated the pre-existing knee condition, which resolved by April 18, 2008.

The applicant was awarded income replacement and housekeeping benefits up to that date, but the claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's termination was not unreasonable.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle and claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer terminated IRBs and housekeeping benefits, leading to arbitration.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant's complaints of pain were likely exaggerated and lacked objective medical evidence after January 2007, he was substantially disabled from performing his pre-accident employment until his shoulder bursitis healed.

The arbitrator awarded IRBs for a closed period but dismissed the claims for ongoing IRBs, housekeeping benefits, and the cost of a redundant functional abilities evaluation.

Each party was ordered to bear their own expenses.