Dr. Paul Derry

The applicant sought post-104-week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent initially approved the benefits but denied them four days later based on the same Insurer's Examination reports.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial was a correction of the initial approval and that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The applicant's expert reports were given little weight due to a lack of objective testing and failure to outline functional limitations.

The claim for income replacement benefits and interest was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal awarded the applicant $500 in costs because the respondent breached a case conference report and order by producing documents 137 days late, which interfered with the efficiency of the dispute resolution process.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) and entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, placing limited weight on her experts due to her inconsistent self-reporting and failure to account for intervening events.

The Tribunal denied the disputed treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, psychological services, and bathroom renovations, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal granted the cost of prescribed cannabis oil, noting that a treatment plan was not required for expenses under $250, and ordered a 35% award against the respondent for unreasonably withholding payment for the cannabis oil.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG, and sought non-earner benefits (NEB) and funding for treatment plans.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical records reporting psychological concerns.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she had successfully continued her education and secured employment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, lost educational expenses, and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments over the applicant's self-reported evidence.

Claims for lost educational expenses were denied as academic transcripts showed the applicant continued his studies and improved his grades post-accident.

The disputed treatment plans were found not to be reasonable and necessary, and the requested hourly rate for a social worker exceeded the applicable Guideline maximum.

The applicant sought entitlement to a social work assessment and occupational therapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's physiatry report regarding the need for a social work assessment, and found insufficient evidence to support the disputed duration of occupational therapy sessions.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits following a minor motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in employment.

The Tribunal relied on surveillance evidence showing the applicant socializing, driving, and taking vacations, which contradicted his claims of severe impairment.

The Tribunal also found the claimed medical benefits were not reasonable and necessary, as previous treatments had not improved his condition and independent medical examinations found him capable of working.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer, claiming she suffered a catastrophic impairment due to a combination of physical injuries and severe psychological disorders (depression, PTSD, and chronic pain).

The arbitrator found that the applicant's combined physical and psychological impairments met the 55% whole person impairment threshold, qualifying her for catastrophic impairment status.

The arbitrator also found the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, entitling her to ongoing non-earner benefits.

Claims for a specialized hospital bed and certain rehabilitation expenses were granted, while claims for massage therapy, travel time, and a special award were denied.