Dr. M. Baxter

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them, alleging his ongoing disability was due to a pre-existing congenital neck condition, degenerative changes, or self-limitation.

The arbitrator found that while the congenital condition was not caused by the accident, the accident injuries combined with the fear generated by the discovery of the condition led to a chronic pain syndrome.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's video surveillance evidence as proof of ability to return to work and ordered the reinstatement of income replacement benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits before returning to full-time work as a campus police officer.

She continued to miss occasional days of work due to ongoing symptoms and claimed income benefits for those days, as well as for a three-week period following a physiotherapy program.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment on the occasional days missed, the deduction of 80 percent of her post-accident income under section 15 of the Schedule reduced the payable benefit to zero.

The arbitrator also found the applicant was not disabled during the three-week period in December 1997 and dismissed the claim for a special award, concluding the insurer had not acted unreasonably.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle and subsequently claimed income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated these benefits based on a Designated Assessment Centre report.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was substantially disabled from performing the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, which included multiple labour-intensive part-time jobs.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's medical experts over the insurer's assessors.

Furthermore, the arbitrator awarded a $5,000 special award, finding that the insurer acted unreasonably by ignoring additional medical evidence that supported the applicant's claim.