Dr. Earl Bogoch

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, a functional ability evaluation, and neuropsychological assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with a production order, leading to an adverse inference.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for neuropsychological assessments because the respondent had already paid the $2,000 maximum under s. 25(5)(a) of the Schedule for one of three identical plans.

The claims for physiotherapy and a functional ability evaluation were dismissed because the applicant failed to prove causation on a balance of probabilities, given evidence of pre-existing and subsequent injuries, and contradictory evidence regarding his work status.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident tort action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend orthopaedic and neurological defence medical examinations.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants were issue estopped because the Licence Appeal Tribunal had already found her to be catastrophically impaired under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The court rejected the issue estoppel argument, noting the different thresholds between SABS and tort actions and the 'firewall' between the two processes.

The court granted the orthopaedic examination as the plaintiff had put her physical condition in issue, but denied the neurological examination because the plaintiff had not claimed neurological impairment.