Dr. Christopher Brigham

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine whether the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under clauses 2(1.2)(f) and (g) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not suffer a marked or extreme mental or behavioural impairment under clause (g).

However, combining the applicant's physical impairments (34%) and mental/behavioural impairments (29%), the arbitrator concluded that the applicant sustained a 55% whole person impairment.

Therefore, the applicant was deemed to have sustained a catastrophic impairment under clause (f).

In an arbitration for statutory accident benefits, the insurer sought to file an expert report on catastrophic impairment after the hearing had commenced, missing the 30-day deadline under Rule 39.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The insurer argued that a recent Court of Appeal decision constituted a change in law justifying the late filing.

The arbitrator rejected this argument, finding no change in the law that would constitute extraordinary circumstances.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that the report, which offered an interpretation of the AMA Guides, usurped the core function of the arbitrator and was therefore inadmissible under the Mohan criteria.