Dr. Riyad Khamis

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, a pedestrian injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for vision impairments.

The respondent insurer denied treatment plans for visual training and therapeutic glasses, arguing the vision issues were pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's vision impairments were caused or exacerbated by the accident, preferring the evidence of her treating practitioners over the respondent's neurological assessor.

The Tribunal concluded that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, and ordered the respondent to pay for them with interest.