Dr. R. Notkin

The applicant was injured in multiple motor vehicle accidents, most notably in September 1996.

She claimed the cost of psychological treatment, which the insurer denied, arguing the need for treatment arose from subsequent accidents or life events.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's need for psychological treatment largely stemmed from the September 1996 accident and that the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

The arbitrator also found that the insurer unreasonably withheld and delayed payment of the benefits, failing to comply with its obligation to pay pending resolution of the dispute and failing to arrange a timely assessment.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the treatment, interest, and a special award of $5,000.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in November 1997 and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated his income replacement benefits in September 1998.

The applicant sought arbitration, claiming ongoing disability due to a severe psychiatric condition, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression with psychotic features.

The insurer argued the condition was pre-existing and not caused by the accidents.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant had a pre-existing personality disorder, he had reached a functional equilibrium prior to the accidents.

The accidents materially contributed to the deterioration of his mental condition, rendering him completely unable to engage in any employment.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay ongoing income replacement benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including medical/rehabilitation benefits and income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated treatment payments and income replacement benefits based on medical assessments.

At arbitration, the tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for physiotherapy treatment up to the date the applicant received the Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) reports, at the rates charged by the clinic.

However, the tribunal dismissed the claim for ongoing income replacement benefits, finding that the medical evidence, including psychiatric and orthopaedic assessments, did not establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a sewing machine operator.