Dr. H. Rockman

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs), the cost of an accountant's report, and medical benefits for assistive devices and psychological treatment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to ongoing IRBs because she had returned to full-time work and was paid her normal salary.

The cost of the accountant's report was deemed unreasonable due to the applicant's failure to provide accurate information regarding collateral benefits.

The claims for assistive devices and further psychological treatment were also dismissed, as the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's examiners, who concluded the items and treatments were not reasonable and necessary given the applicant's functional recovery.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits for chiropractic treatment, and the cost of a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and she did not suffer a substantial or complete inability to work.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding no medical evidence supported the applicant's inability to work.

Insurer examination reports consistently showed no physical or psychological impairments preventing a return to employment.

The adjudicator also found the applicant failed to prove the proposed chiropractic treatments and psychological assessment were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle collision.

The respondent denied further income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and cost of examinations, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries, including chronic pain and a sacroiliac joint sprain, were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG funding limit, which had been exhausted.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, preferring the respondent's expert evidence that the applicant was not substantially impaired from performing the essential tasks of employment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to severe psychological and physical injuries.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant was malingering and not significantly disabled.

The arbitrator found the applicant credible and concluded he suffered a catastrophic impairment under s. 2(1.2)(g) of the Schedule, experiencing marked impairment in activities of daily living and concentration, persistence, and pace.

The arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits at $6,000 per month, and an occupational therapy treatment plan.

Housekeeping benefits were denied due to insufficient evidence of the pre-accident baseline.

A special award of $5,000 was ordered against the insurer for unreasonably delaying payment for the applicant's psychiatric medications.