Dr. Patrick Safieh

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and returned to work six weeks later.

Five months after the accident, the applicant suffered a hemorrhagic stroke at work, resulting in right-side hemiplegia and confinement to a wheelchair.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, arguing the stroke was caused by the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the 'but for' test and found the stroke was caused by pre-existing, uncontrolled hypertension, not the accident.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for an income replacement benefit, a medical benefit for an electric scooter, and an award under Ontario Regulation 664.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street and claimed statutory accident benefits for income replacement, housekeeping, and travel expenses.

The insurer denied income replacement benefits after December 26, 1995, and housekeeping expenses.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found the applicant to be an unreliable historian whose testimony was contradicted by video surveillance showing him walking normally.

The medical evidence did not support the applicant's claims of debilitating physical or cognitive impairments preventing him from performing his job as a furniture assembler.

The claims for income replacement and housekeeping were dismissed, but the applicant was awarded $590 for uncontested travel expenses.