Dr. P. Kominek

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent insurer.

The respondent terminated IRBs based on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's essential tasks of employment were sedentary and that the medical evidence did not support a substantial inability to perform those tasks.

The applicant's claims of physical and psychological impairments preventing work were contradicted by medical records and her ability to complete a post-secondary program.

The application for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits, medical benefits for physiotherapy and massage therapy, and the cost of various assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding the applicant entirely lacking in credibility due to numerous contradictions regarding his pre-accident health, employment duties, living arrangements, and the accident itself.

Surveillance evidence and independent medical examinations demonstrated significant symptom magnification and inconsistent effort.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his employment tasks and that the claimed medical treatments and assessments were not reasonable or necessary.