Dr. Wendy Campbell

The applicant sought medical benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and predominantly minor.

Regarding psychological impairments, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence over the applicant's expert, noting issues with the applicant's self-reporting and a lack of objective evidence supporting an accident-related psychological condition.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's impairments remained within the MIG, and since the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the claims for further medical benefits were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer denied the claims.

The arbitrator dismissed all of the applicant's claims, finding that the applicant lacked credibility and failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment or his housekeeping tasks.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant's wife did not sustain an economic loss to justify the attendant care and housekeeping claims.

Claims for a special award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, housekeeping, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's chronic pain and psychological impairments were not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator applied the material contribution test and found the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing conditions, causing permanent impairment to her right shoulder and psychological disorders.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits, certain medical and assessment costs, and interest, but her claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed due to insufficient credible evidence.

The applicant sought accident benefits after a vehicle crashed into her home, causing her severe psychological and cognitive decline.

The insurer sought to stay the arbitration until the applicant attended further insurer examinations (IEs) under section 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant sought interim benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed the insurer's request for a stay, finding that further IEs would not assist the insurer and were not reasonably necessary given the unopposed expert evidence that further assessments risked causing the applicant serious psychological deterioration.

The arbitrator granted the applicant's request for interim benefits in part, awarding $7,000 for past medical expenses based on a demonstrated prima facie case, financial need, and urgency.