Dr. Len Herman

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two minor motor vehicle accidents in 2011 and 2012.

He had previously suffered a severe workplace injury in 2002, resulting in chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, largely due to extensive surveillance showing him performing activities he claimed he could not do, and his failure to disclose his pre-existing conditions to his assessors.

Applying the 'but for' test for causation, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant's impairments were solely attributable to his 2002 workplace injury and that he suffered no verifiable decline in function following the motor vehicle accidents.

All claims for non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, medical benefits, and cost of examinations were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, massage, and active rehabilitation treatment.

The insurer denied the medical benefits, relying on a Designated Assessment Centre report that found only a portion of the treatment was reasonable and necessary, and that a transition to self-directed care was appropriate.

The arbitrator preferred the DAC assessor's opinion over the applicant's treating chiropractors, finding the applicant's experts failed to provide a rationale for the ongoing treatment.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant's right knee pain was unrelated to the accident.

The application for medical benefits was dismissed, and the applicant was found liable to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses.