Dr. D.J. Ogilvie Harris

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

The respondent terminated IRBs at the 104-week mark.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for ongoing IRBs.

The Tribunal held that the stricter post-104 test applied, requiring the applicant to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The Tribunal found the applicant's expert evidence unpersuasive and noted the lack of supportive evidence from her long-term family doctor.

The application for ongoing IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding she sustained a minor injury and was not entitled to certain treatment plans.

She argued the adjudicator failed to consider the report of an orthopaedic surgeon.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, noting the applicant improperly raised new arguments in her reply submissions and had failed to identify the allegedly ignored evidence in her initial request.

Furthermore, the adjudicator had already addressed the surgeon's report in the initial decision, finding it unpersuasive.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he sustained a minor injury and was not entitled to certain treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator failed to consider the report of an orthopaedic surgeon.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the applicant improperly raised new arguments in reply and failed to demonstrate an error of law or fact.

The adjudicator also noted the expert was not properly qualified at the initial hearing and his report was unpersuasive as the applicant maintained full-time employment.

The respondent's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and capped medical and rehabilitation benefits at $3,500.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims, preferring the respondent's independent medical examination reports over the applicant's orthopaedic expert.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained minor injuries, and having exhausted the $3,500 limit, was not entitled to further chiropractic benefits, interest, or an award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $2,520 for an orthopaedic assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent had already removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline based on a psychological assessment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the orthopaedic assessment was reasonable and necessary, as the clinical notes from the family physician did not document physical limitations requiring such an assessment.

The claim for the assessment cost, along with claims for interest and an award, was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and various assessments.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the policy limits had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that a pre-existing shoulder injury and psychological issues removed her from the MIG.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence of a documented pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limits, and concluded the psychological issues were mild and did not warrant removal from the MIG.

The claims for treatment, assessments, a special award, and interest were all dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the appellant's ongoing disability was due to a pre-existing schizoaffective disorder rather than the accident.

The arbitrator agreed, finding the accident's material contribution to the disability ended by August 2001, and dismissed claims for various assessment expenses.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decisions, finding no error of law in the arbitrator's evaluation of the medical evidence, the impact of the appellant's pre-existing condition, or the rejection of assessment expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them, arguing she was no longer disabled.

The applicant sought further income replacement benefits and payment for medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, noting her refusal to attempt a return to work and relying on the opinions of her treating physician and psychologist.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed.

However, the arbitrator allowed the claim for medical and rehabilitation expenses, finding the treatments reasonable and beneficial.

The applicant, a 52-year-old bricklayer with limited English skills, was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming ongoing weekly income benefits beyond the 156-week mark, care benefits, and a special award.

The insurer argued he was capable of performing alternative sedentary work.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from a combination of musculoskeletal injuries, mild brain injury, and psychological impairments that rendered him competitively unemployable.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing weekly income benefits and care benefits for the assistance provided by his family, but denied the claim for a special award.

The applicant sought ongoing weekly income benefits and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits after an independent medical examination concluded the applicant's complaints were not genuine and he was fit to return to work.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for ongoing benefits, finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility due to his active concealment of a prior similar accident and exaggeration of his symptoms.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed, but the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses because the claim was not manifestly frivolous.