Jeffrey C. Smith

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund appealed an arbitrator’s decision finding that an injured motorcyclist was not principally dependent on his parents for financial support under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator had concluded that during the 12 months preceding the accident the claimant’s employment income exceeded 51% of his financial needs, applying the dependency framework from Miller v. Safeco and subsequent arbitral jurisprudence.

The appellant argued the arbitrator misapplied the dependency factors and improperly confined the analysis to the year preceding the accident.

The court held that the determination of dependency involved mixed fact and law and was reviewable on a reasonableness standard.

Finding the arbitrator’s use of the 12‑month timeframe and the 51% dependency test reasonable and consistent with established jurisprudence, the court dismissed the appeal.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated weekly income benefits at the 156-week mark.

The applicant sought ongoing weekly income benefits, supplementary medical expenses for massage therapy and transportation, and a special award.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was continuously prevented from engaging in any occupation for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, and awarded ongoing weekly income benefits.

The arbitrator also awarded the claimed medical and transportation expenses, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Finally, the arbitrator awarded a $25,000 special award, finding that the insurer had unreasonably withheld and delayed payments by ignoring medical evidence, failing to pay mandatory expenses pending dispute resolution, and failing to provide written notice of refusal.

The applicant, a self-employed carpenter, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The parties disputed the calculation of his weekly income benefits.

The applicant argued his income should be based on the four weeks preceding the accident, utilizing a 'work-in-progress' accounting method for an unfinished renovation contract.

The arbitrator rejected this method because the partnership was not paid in full for the work and ultimately suffered a loss.

The applicant failed to establish his income exceeded the deemed statutory minimum.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay the minimum weekly income benefit of $185.60, plus the applicant's arbitration expenses.