Dr. Jha

The plaintiffs brought a personal injury action against the estate of a deceased driver who caused a multi-vehicle collision after suffering a sudden seizure.

The defendant estate moved for summary judgment, arguing the collision was an inevitable accident caused by a sudden medical emergency.

The court found that the driver had followed all medical advice, complied with his medication regimen, and had no reason to anticipate the seizure.

Consequently, the court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action, holding that the driver met the standard of reasonable care.

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

The respondent denied several benefits, arguing the applicant was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and barred from proceeding on certain issues due to procedural failures.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not statute-barred by the two-year limitation period, as it was extended by O. Reg. 73/20.

However, the applicant was barred from claiming non-earner benefits for failing to submit an Election of Benefits form (OCF-10) and barred from disputing two treatment plans for failing to submit Treatment Confirmation forms (OCF-23).

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG, as there was insufficient medical evidence of a concussion or psychological impairment warranting removal.

The Tribunal denied an occupational therapy assessment but approved a neurological assessment to investigate a likely mild concussion.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying entitlement to a neuropsychological assessment, multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessment, and SPECT scan.

The applicant argued procedural unfairness, errors of law and fact, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness, no errors in weighing the medical and surveillance evidence, and that the applicant failed to explain why the new evidence could not have been obtained prior to the hearing.

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

The respondent denied the designation, arguing that the applicant's ASIA Impairment Scale grade was not yet "permanent" because the injury had the potential to improve over the initial 18-24 months.

The adjudicator found that the applicant met the definition of catastrophic impairment, noting that her ASIA Impairment Scale score of "D" satisfied the criteria and there was no evidence she would improve to a normal "E" score.

The adjudicator rejected the respondent's argument that a 24-month waiting period was required, as paragraph 1 of section 3.1(1) contains no such temporal requirement.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a psychological impairment, chronic pain syndrome, or carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of the accident, and failed to prove a causal link between her severe bilateral neural foraminal stenosis and the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans and assessment were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The parties settled all issues except expenses shortly before the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator determined that the applicant was entitled to expenses under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator awarded $1,200 for legal fees, $3,500 for expert reports (allowing the reports of Dr. Jha and Dr. Braganza but rejecting a second report by Dr. Waxer as duplicative), and $1,150 for disbursements, for a total expense award of $5,850.