Dr. Lubinsky

The defendant brought a motion for leave to bring a motion after the action was set down for trial, seeking to compel the plaintiff to attend an independent neuropsychological examination.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant had sufficient time to arrange the assessment and that her condition was well-documented.

The court granted leave, finding that the plaintiff's late service of a new neuropsychological report constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

Applying the factors for ordering a further medical examination, the court held that the defendant was entitled to respond to the plaintiff's expert report with a matching specialty report to ensure trial fairness.

The plaintiff was ordered to attend the examination, and the defendant was granted an extension of time to serve the resulting report.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a medical benefit for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not meet the test for a non-earner benefit, as video surveillance and medical assessments demonstrated she had resumed most of her pre-accident activities, including caring for her children, driving, and household chores.

The adjudicator also denied the medical benefit for chiropractic services, finding it was not reasonable and necessary because the applicant had reached a plateau in her recovery and was successfully participating in an independent exercise program.

Claims for an award under Ontario Regulation 664 and interest were consequently dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sustained a traumatic brain injury and multiple skull fractures.

She applied for catastrophic impairment designation under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule based on a Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score of 3 (severe disability).

The insurer denied the designation, relying on a neurologist who found no physical neurological deficits.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's narrow interpretation of the GOS, preferring the applicant's physiatrist who considered cognitive and behavioural impairments that rendered the applicant dependent on daily support.

The arbitrator found the applicant catastrophically impaired, awarded past and ongoing attendant care benefits for services provided by her husband, approved most of the disputed medical and rehabilitation treatment plans, and held the insurer liable for a special award for unreasonably withholding benefits.