Dr. John Castiglione

Following an arbitration where the insurer was completely successful in defending all claims for statutory accident benefits, the insurer requested an expense hearing.

The insurer claimed $54,029.63 in total expenses.

The arbitrator found the insurer's claimed hours excessive and reduced the fees to match the applicant's own legal costs of $24,423.47 plus HST.

Disbursements for two expert witnesses were also reduced to the maximum amounts permitted under the Expense Regulation.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $29,798.52 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries were catastrophic.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting she had returned to work shortly after the accident, retrained for a more physically demanding job, and was observed on surveillance performing activities she claimed she could not do.

The arbitrator preferred the insurer's expert evidence over the applicant's, concluding the applicant failed to prove her injuries were catastrophic or that the claimed attendant care and medical benefits were reasonable, necessary, and directly caused by the accident.

All claims were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

At arbitration, the applicant argued his injuries, including a concussion, psychological issues, and chronic pain, removed him from the MIG.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence of a concussion or psychological impairment but accepted the orthopaedic surgeon's diagnosis of chronic pain, which was sufficient to remove the applicant from the MIG.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary.

The arbitrator declined to order a special award, finding the insurer's reliance on the initial MIG classification and an insurer's examination was not unreasonable.

This decision addresses three evidentiary issues raised at the commencement of a personal injury trial following jury selection.

The court considered the plaintiff's right to introduce expert opinion on pension loss, a family doctor's opinion on causation of a pre-existing back condition, and a treating psychiatrist's reports.

The court allowed the pension loss expert evidence, subject to an adjournment and potential costs, and the psychiatrist's reports, also necessitating an adjournment.

However, the family doctor's causation opinion was deemed to exceed the scope of a participant expert and was excluded due to non-compliance with Rule 53.03.