Dr. Michael Caterer

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until the insurer terminated them, arguing his ongoing back pain was caused by post-accident weight gain rather than the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's rapid weight gain and chronic pain were a result of the accident.

Relying on the applicant's medical experts, the Tribunal concluded the applicant met both the pre-104 week test of substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment and the post-104 week test of complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The applicant was awarded ongoing IRBs with interest, and the insurer's claim for repayment of benefits was dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment plans, including rehabilitation, occupational therapy, rehabilitation support worker, and psychological services.

The Insurer denied the plans based on assessments from its own experts.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant's experts, who diagnosed chronic pain syndrome and severe depression, to be more credible and qualified than the Insurer's assessors.

All six treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary and were approved.

However, the Arbitrator declined to order a special award, finding that the Insurer had not acted unreasonably in requesting assessments and denying the claims given the circumstances.