Dr. Gerald Young

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The respondent denied the catastrophic designation, alleging the applicant was malingering, and denied treatment plans for chiropractic care and assessments.

The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts over the respondent's neuropsychologist, who used outdated tests and viewed her role as a 'detective'.

The Tribunal denied the chiropractic treatment plan as it was largely outside the scope of chiropractic practice.

The cost of a neuropsychological assessment was approved as reasonable and necessary, while a triage assessment was denied.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring her psychological expert to produce his handwritten notes, questionnaires, and answers from his assessment of the plaintiff.

The expert had refused to produce the raw data, claiming it was proprietary.

The Master ordered production on an undertakings and refusals motion without notice to the expert.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law by ordering relief against a non-party without giving him an opportunity to be heard, which violated the principle of audi alteram partem.

The proper procedure was a motion for production from a non-party under Rule 30.10.

The court varied the order to require production only of documents the expert did not object to producing, leaving the defendants to bring a proper Rule 30.10 motion if they wished to pursue the disputed records.

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to produce raw data, including handwritten notes, questionnaires, and answers, from a psycho-legal assessment conducted by Dr. Gerald Young.

The plaintiff opposed unconditional disclosure, citing privacy concerns and Dr. Young's proprietary interest in the questionnaires.

The court balanced the public interest in relevant evidence and trial fairness against patient privacy and the integrity of mental health evaluations.

The motion was allowed in part, ordering production of the raw data to defendants' counsel and any retained expert, subject to strict conditions of non-disclosure to the defendants themselves and destruction upon completion of the action or expert retainer.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and funding for psychological and chronic pain assessments.

The insurer terminated IRBs after six months and denied the assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks for the first 104 weeks, nor a complete inability to engage in employment thereafter, relying on surveillance evidence showing him working and medical reports indicating symptom magnification.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant's injuries were minor, dismissing the claims for the assessments.

The applicant was injured in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits 11 months post-accident based on incomplete and deficient insurer examination reports.

The applicant sought ongoing income replacement benefits, interest, and a special award.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's termination of benefits was premature and unreasonable, entitling the applicant to benefits up to the 104-week mark and a special award of $7,500.

However, the arbitrator found the applicant was not entitled to benefits beyond 104 weeks, as she exaggerated her physical and psychological impairments, failed to make reasonable efforts to return to work, and her pre-accident employer was willing to accommodate her return.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while walking across an intersection and sustained physical and psychological injuries.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits based on an orthopaedic assessment.

The applicant sought arbitration, arguing she suffered from chronic pain with a significant psychological component that prevented her from working.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was completely unable to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited, preferring the evidence of her psychological experts over the insurer's assessors.

The arbitrator also granted a special award, finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by misfiling and ignoring a key psychological report that supported her claim.