3 total
Application for accident benefits dismissed as injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.
The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits.
The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and that she did not suffer from chronic pain or a pre-existing condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.
As the MIG limits were exhausted, the application for treatment plans and interest was dismissed.
Claims for accident benefits and insurer's claim for repayment of benefits both dismissed.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and non-earner benefits (NEBs) following two motor vehicle accidents.
The insurer denied the benefits and sought repayment of $42,402.58 in IRBs previously paid, alleging material misrepresentation regarding the applicant's employment and income.
The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims, finding that his pain complaints were long-standing and pre-existing, and he failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his employment tasks or a complete inability to carry on a normal life.
The arbitrator also dismissed the insurer's claim for repayment, concluding there was insufficient evidence to prove the applicant wilfully misrepresented his employment or committed fraud.
Appeal of arbitration decision terminating weekly income benefits dismissed; arbitrator's findings of fact and application of law upheld.
The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the respondent terminated them.
An arbitrator found that while the appellant suffered from accident-related pain, he was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a machinist.
The appellant appealed, arguing the arbitrator misapprehended the medical and surveillance evidence, misapplied the test under section 12 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and that the hearing was unfair because he was unrepresented.
The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence, the correct legal test was applied, and the arbitration process was fair.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.