Dr. David Bereznick

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits, housekeeping benefits, and payment for treatment.

The insurer terminated benefits based on medical assessments indicating full recovery.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove she was substantially unable to perform her pre-accident employment or housekeeping duties.

The arbitrator preferred the insurer's medical evidence, noting the applicant's lack of supporting medical records, inconsistent testimony, and surveillance evidence showing her working.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, medical, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer denied the claims.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found the applicant's testimony regarding his employment and job offers to be inconsistent and not credible, dismissing the claim for income replacement benefits.

The housekeeping claim was dismissed as it fell outside the two-year limitation period and lacked credible evidence.

The medical benefits claim for a work hardening program was dismissed based on the persuasive testimony of the insurer's expert chiropractor, who concluded the treatment was not reasonable or necessary.

All claims were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for exercise therapy under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had pre-existing shoulder issues and lacked credibility regarding his medical history.

Relying on expert medical assessments, the arbitrator concluded the applicant had regained almost full mobility prior to the disputed therapy and did not have an impairment requiring the treatment.

The claims for medical benefits and a special award were dismissed.