Dr. Gary Shapero

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming an inability to return to her pre-accident employment as an esthetician.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the applicant's employment records and a lack of objective medical evidence supporting her ongoing disability.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's medical expert report due to methodological flaws and preferred the consistent opinions of the insurer's examiners that she could return to work.

The application for IRBs, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a class member in a class action arising from a 1999 VIA Rail train derailment, sought over $60 million in damages, primarily for past and future loss of income and future care costs.

The plaintiff claimed the accident caused severe, debilitating injuries that destroyed his highly lucrative consulting business in Poland and Eastern Europe.

The court found the plaintiff and many of his lay and medical witnesses lacked credibility, noting significant inconsistencies, lack of documentary evidence (such as tax returns and banking records), and evidence of extensive post-accident travel and business activities.

The court rejected the income loss and future care claims entirely, awarding only $50,000 in general damages for minor soft tissue injuries.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed income replacement benefits (IRBs) and other expenses, arguing she was unable to continue her employment as a live-in housekeeper.

The arbitrator awarded IRBs for a brief period following the accident but concluded the appellant failed to prove ongoing disability, relying on surveillance evidence and testimony that she stopped working for reasons unrelated to the accident.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no error in the evaluation of medical evidence, the admission of hearsay, or the reliance on surveillance videotapes.

The appeal was dismissed, and the arbitrator's reduction of the appellant's expenses due to delay was affirmed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement and housekeeping expenses, arguing she could no longer work as a live-in housekeeper.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant sustained genuine injuries, including vertigo and cervicogenic pain, she exaggerated her limitations and was only disabled from working until her employer returned from Florida on February 21, 1996.

Income replacement benefits were awarded up to that date, along with a 50% special award because the insurer unreasonably withheld payment despite having uncontradicted medical evidence of disability for that initial period.

Claims for ongoing income replacement, housekeeping, and a case manager were dismissed.