3 total
Application for income replacement benefits dismissed as surveillance evidence contradicted claims of inability to work.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming that physical and psychological injuries prevented him from working as a self-employed electrician.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.
The applicant's medical evidence was given little weight as it lacked objective support and did not address his ability to work.
Conversely, the respondent's medical assessments and video surveillance evidence, which showed the applicant performing work-related tasks without apparent difficulty, were accepted.
The application for IRB and interest was dismissed.
Application for accident benefits dismissed as applicant failed to prove impairments prevented her from working.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and various treatment plans, following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's inability to work was due to a COVID-19 layoff, not accident-related injuries.
The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility due to surveillance evidence and inconsistent reporting regarding her employment termination.
Relying on the clinical notes of the applicant's family doctor, which indicated no accident-related impairments, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove entitlement to the IRB or that the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.
Application for accident benefits dismissed; applicant failed to prove injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied certain medical and assessment benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The applicant argued that a pre-existing knee condition, a concussion, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.
The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery, no medical diagnosis of a concussion, and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment which found no DSM-5 diagnosis.
The application was dismissed as the MIG limits were exhausted.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.