Dr. Stephen Connell

Following an arbitration decision awarding statutory accident benefits to the applicant, the parties disputed the quantum of expenses, the calculation of interest on overdue benefits, and whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to increase the quantum of an approved medical benefit.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant $27,910.01 in expenses, finding the insurer's adversarial approach unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

The arbitrator also held that interest on overdue benefits runs from 30 days after the receipt of the treatment plans, rejecting the insurer's argument that interest only runs from the submission of invoices.

Finally, the arbitrator concluded she lacked jurisdiction to amend the quantum of the approved medical benefit, as it would constitute a substantive change rather than correcting a typographical error.

The applicant sought to vary or revoke an arbitrator's decision denying his claims for income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits, relying on new medical reports as 'new evidence'.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence could have been obtained prior to the original hearing with due diligence.

Furthermore, the Delegate held that even if admitted, the new evidence would not have led to a different result, as it did not address the arbitrator's core findings regarding the applicant's lack of credibility, failure to prove income loss, and demonstrated functional abilities.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment including a traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech-language therapy, and a multi-disciplinary residential program in the United States.

The arbitrator found that the insurer improperly relied on outdated or flawed assessor reports and failed to give adequate weight to the objective evidence of the applicant's treating professionals.

All disputed treatment plans were found to be reasonable and necessary, and the applicant was awarded the claimed benefits with interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a tractor trailer and sustained a catastrophic impairment.

He sought various statutory accident benefits, including caregiver, income replacement, housekeeping, attendant care, and medical benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed the majority of the claims, citing significant credibility issues, surveillance evidence showing the applicant performing demanding physical activities, and a failure to provide documentation regarding post-accident employment and income.

The insurer was ordered to pay for one specific treatment plan at the catastrophic impairment rate, but the claim for a special award was denied.