Dr. Eric Pierre

The appellant appealed an arbitration decision that dismissed her claims for income replacement and housekeeping benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Arbitrator had excluded the expert testimony of the appellant's two medical witnesses regarding her disability because she failed to serve a will-say statement under Rule 42 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate found that the Arbitrator erred in law by failing to consider whether the medical reports already filed provided adequate notice of the substance of the experts' testimony.

The appeal was allowed, the arbitration orders were revoked, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different arbitrator.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits, the insurer sought its expenses of the arbitration proceeding.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was completely unsuccessful and had failed to provide any reliable independent evidence of payments to a replacement worker, rendering the proceeding borderline frivolous.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses in the amount of $3,686.25.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a TMJ condition and transportation expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The transportation claim was resolved during the hearing.

The applicant withdrew the TMJ claim after his own expert witness testified that the condition was not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim and ordered each party to bear their own arbitration expenses, noting that while the hearing might have been avoided with better preparation, the proceeding was not manifestly unfounded, frivolous, or vexatious.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and housekeeping expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

She claimed she was unable to perform her work as an electrolysist and had to hire a replacement worker.

The arbitrator found the applicant's financial records unreliable and unsupported by source documentation.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant continued to work after the accident at or above her pre-accident level and did not hire a replacement worker.

The claims for income replacement benefits, housekeeping expenses, and a special award were dismissed.