Dr. Edmeads

The applicant was injured in a pedestrian knockdown and sought ongoing income replacement and medical benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits, alleging the applicant was exaggerating her symptoms and sought repayment of an overpayment.

The arbitrator found the applicant's presentation of chronic pain and emotional impairments to be genuine, rejecting the insurer's expert who admitted a bias toward skepticism.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits as she was completely unable to engage in suitable employment.

The insurer's claim for repayment was dismissed as the overpayment resulted from an employer error, not the applicant's wilful misrepresentation.

Medical benefits were partially awarded.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against the respondent doctors.

The appellants alleged negligence in the administration of an epidural anaesthetic during childbirth, claiming it caused a dural tear and nerve damage resulting in ongoing pain.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no dural tear or nerve damage, and that the claim was barred by the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and not tainted by palpable and overriding error.