Dr. Safar Daei

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological treatment, physiotherapy, housekeeping, and the cost of assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant suffered from significant credibility issues, having failed to disclose a prior accident and pre-existing conditions to medical assessors.

The arbitrator relied on the findings of the insurer's examiners and the Med/Rehab DAC assessors, who concluded that further treatment was not reasonable or necessary.

The claims for housekeeping and assessment costs were also dismissed for lack of evidence and medical referral.

Due to the applicant's lack of success and her representative's problematic conduct during the hearing, the parties were ordered to bear their own arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits, physiotherapy expenses, and the cost of a functional assessment after the insurer terminated her benefits.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant's physical injuries were mild, she suffered from depression and anxiety significantly contributed to by the accident, which caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a home health aide.

Income replacement benefits were awarded up to July 20, 1997, when psychological evidence indicated she was capable of resuming her pre-accident lifestyle.

The claims for physiotherapy and a functional assessment were dismissed as not reasonable or necessary.

The applicant was injured when she fell on a TTC bus.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits and various medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The insurer terminated income replacement benefits based on a multidisciplinary DAC assessment.

The arbitrator found the applicant to be a poor historian prone to exaggeration and deceit, and preferred the evidence of the IME and DAC assessors over her treating physiatrist.

The claim for ongoing income replacement benefits was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove she was substantially unable to perform her duties as a housekeeper and nanny.

Claims for psychological treatment, massage therapy, a lumbosacral support, and some taxi fares were allowed, while the remaining claims were dismissed.