Dr. J. Castiglione

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

The respondent determined the injuries were minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he suffered from a concussion, chronic pain, and a psychological impairment, which fall outside the MIG.

The Tribunal excluded a late-filed psychological assessment report due to prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims of concussion, chronic pain, or psychological impairment.

Consequently, the injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the claims for treatment plans and assessments beyond the MIG limit, as well as interest, were dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and a determination that her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline following a minor parking garage collision.

The adjudicator held that the characterization of injuries cannot be a standalone issue when no medical benefits are in dispute.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of disability, while the respondent's insurer examinations persuasively indicated symptom magnification and no accident-related impairment.

The father brought a motion to change a child support order dated August 8, 2016, seeking to reduce his monthly support obligation from $773 to $150 per month based on claimed income of $8,652 per year, and to rescind all accumulated arrears.

The mother cross-moved to dismiss the motion and to increase support based on imputed income of $83,517 per year.

The court found the father intentionally underemployed, rejected his claims of medical disability, found his education/retraining plan unreasonable and unsupported, and determined the father had engaged in intentional deception and gamesmanship throughout the proceedings.

The court imputed income of $59,491 per year retroactive to March 17, 2015, resulting in increased monthly support obligations and a conduct order restricting future motions without court permission.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under both the 55% whole person impairment (WPI) threshold (clause 2(1.2)(f)) and the marked impairment threshold for mental or behavioural disorders (clause 2(1.2)(g)).

The arbitrator accepted the applicant's physical impairment rating of 48% WPI and assessed her mental and behavioural impairment at 33% WPI, resulting in a combined 65% WPI.

The arbitrator also found a marked impairment in three of four functional spheres.

Regarding the claimed expenses totaling $83,417.90, the arbitrator awarded only $1,925.00 for a mental health assessment, dismissing the remainder because they were not properly submitted through the HCAI system as required by the Schedule.