Dr. Jack Richman

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant applied for arbitration, claiming ongoing benefits due to chronic pain and depression that rendered him unable to perform his pre-accident maintenance job.

The insurer argued the applicant was not disabled and that any impairment was due to pre-existing factors.

The arbitrator found the applicant's pain complaints genuine and supported by medical evidence, concluding he suffered from a chronic pain condition with a significant psychological component.

Applying the thin skull rule, the arbitrator held the accident materially contributed to the disability.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, interest, and arbitration expenses, as well as partial chiropractic expenses, but the claim for a recliner chair was denied.

The applicant sought ongoing income replacement benefits, medical expenses, and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the accident did not cause the applicant's injuries and sought repayment of benefits paid, alleging wilful misrepresentation.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence unreliable and accepted expert medical evidence that the applicant exaggerated his symptoms and that the accident did not cause his delayed symptoms.

The claims for benefits and a special award were dismissed.

The insurer's request for repayment was also dismissed, as the applicant's exaggeration did not amount to wilful misrepresentation.

The applicant was awarded half of his arbitration expenses.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits based on a claimed pre-accident job offer.

The Insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment, alleging the job offer was fraudulent.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant failed to prove the existence of the job offer, reducing his weekly benefit entitlement, but dismissed the Insurer's claim for repayment as it failed to prove the overpayment resulted from the Applicant's error or fraud.

The Arbitrator also dismissed the Applicant's claims for ongoing weekly benefits and vocational retraining, finding he was no longer disabled from working in suitable employment, relying on surveillance evidence and his lack of credibility.