Marcel Jean

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for 104 weeks.

The respondent terminated IRBs on the basis that the applicant did not meet the post-104 week test of a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his pain levels to be unreliable, noting evidence of symptom exaggeration and malingering from the respondent's expert assessors.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove he suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment and dismissed the claims for IRBs, interest, and a special award.

The applicant, a self-employed locksmith, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2000 and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until the insurer terminated them in 2006.

The applicant sought post-104 week IRBs, arguing he suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The arbitrator found the applicant credible and accepted that his chronic pain syndrome prevented him from working an eight-hour day on a full-time basis.

The insurer's experts failed to consider whether the applicant could sustain full-time hours in a structured employment setting.

The arbitrator also dismissed the insurer's request to set off alleged past overpayments against future IRBs, as the insurer had not followed the statutory notice and repayment scheme under section 47 of the Schedule.

The applicant was awarded IRBs of $185.00 per week from March 2006 onward.