3 total
Application for income replacement and medical benefits dismissed as applicant failed to prove substantial inability.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and medical benefits for chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied the benefits based on multiple insurer's examinations (IEs) which concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, as his family doctor's clinical notes did not directly attribute his ongoing pain to the accident and did not address his inability to work.
The Tribunal accepted the consistent findings of the respondent's IE assessors and dismissed the claims for IRB, medical benefits, interest, and an award.
Physiotherapy treatment plan approved for catastrophically impaired pedestrian over insurer's expert opinions.
The applicant, who suffered catastrophic injuries as a pedestrian in a motor vehicle accident, sought a medical benefit for a physiotherapy treatment plan.
The respondent insurer denied the plan, relying on its expert assessors who opined that home-directed exercises were sufficient and that the applicant's neurological impairment was fixed.
The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating multidisciplinary team, finding the professionally directed physiotherapy reasonable and necessary to manage and prevent regression of the applicant's conditions.
The treatment plan was approved with interest.
Application for non-earner benefits dismissed as surveillance and medical evidence showed no complete inability.
The applicant sought Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to physical and psychological impairments.
The respondent insurer denied the claim.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's impairments did not continuously prevent her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, relying on surveillance evidence showing her performing various daily tasks and the opinions of the respondent's assessors who examined her during the relevant period.
The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's occupational therapist's report because it was prepared long after the accident and following a second motor vehicle accident.
The application for NEBs, an award, and interest was dismissed.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.