Dr. Joel Maser

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming the balance of a treatment plan for a hot tub and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal found the hot tub was reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's accident-related chronic back pain and mobility limitations, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating occupational therapist over the insurer's assessors.

However, the claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide evidence that the expenses were actually incurred, as required by the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, medical cannabis, an emotional support dog, and home modifications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, or home modifications, as they were not reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to reimbursement for incurred medical cannabis expenses to manage her chronic pain syndrome, and to an emotional support dog to address her accident-related anxiety, as she had already attempted frontline treatments.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue payments but declined to grant an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding no unreasonable delay by the insurer.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for the prescription medication Saxenda, arguing that her type 1 diabetes was triggered by emotional stress following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident caused her diabetes, as her own medical expert could not determine the exact initiation of the condition.

In the alternative, the adjudicator held that the applicant failed to prove the medication was reasonable and necessary, noting it was an off-label treatment for weight loss and no evidence of her body mass index was provided.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until May 1992.

He sought further weekly benefits, rehabilitation expenses, and a special award.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility and that he was substantially able to perform his essential tasks after May 1992, dismissing the claim for ongoing weekly benefits.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found the applicant had attended school full-time between January and May 1992, precluding him from receiving benefits during that period, and ordered him to repay the benefits received.

The insurer was ordered to pay an outstanding rehabilitation account that had been pre-approved.

The insurer was also awarded $500 because the applicant's conduct unreasonably prolonged the proceedings and parts of the claim were without merit.