Dr. Martin

This ruling addresses requested changes to the jury charge in a medical negligence trial concerning the standard of care and the admissibility and weight of evidence regarding minority medical practice, usual practice, and the distinction between buttock numbness and saddle anaesthesia.

The court reviews the law on minority practice, the role of expert evidence, and the proper approach to weighing conflicting testimony, ultimately declining to make certain amendments requested by the defendant and clarifying the law for the jury.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits, medical benefits for physiotherapy, and an accounting report.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence of an accident-related impairment causing a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The claims for the accounting report and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, including physiotherapy, a chronic pain program, psychological treatment, aqua therapy, and assessments.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on Insurer's Examination reports.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling contemporaneous medical evidence to support the treatment plans.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, noting the applicant's active work and family life and the lack of objective signs of accident-related impairment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $400 per week from February 2018 onwards, along with interest and an award for unreasonable withholding of benefits.

The respondent insurer had terminated the IRB based on insurer's examinations concluding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a construction labourer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he met the pre-104 week disability test.

The application was dismissed, and no IRB, interest, or award was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and various medical expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the chiropractic treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary as the medical evidence did not support the claimed functional limitations.

Furthermore, the Tribunal denied the OCF-6 expenses because the applicant, an international student, failed to first submit the claims to her available collateral benefits provider (UHIP) as required by section 47(2) of the Schedule.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a fractured sternum and psychological impairments, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and certain medical/assessment costs.

Furthermore, the Tribunal granted a special award of 40% of the outstanding attendant care benefits, finding the respondent unreasonably withheld payment by intentionally misrepresenting its assessors' findings to keep the applicant within the MIG.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and seeking payment for a psychological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his psychological and physical injuries were not predominantly minor, as the psychological assessment relied upon was subjective and inconsistent with objective test results.

Consequently, the applicant's benefits remained capped at $3,500 under the MIG.

However, the Tribunal found the psychological assessment was a reasonable and necessary expense, ordering the insurer to pay for it, with interest, provided there were remaining funds within the applicant's MIG limit.

The appellant appealed a jury's damages award following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the awards for loss of income and future care were inordinately low and that the trial judge erred by failing to strike the jury after a student of the respondent's counsel had lunch with two jurors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding there was sufficient evidence for the jury to disbelieve the appellant's claimed inability to work and to accept alternative, less costly future care options.

The court also held that the trial judge did not err in failing to strike the jury, as the appellant had been offered a mistrial but explicitly opted to proceed with the same jury.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement and housekeeping benefits from her insurer under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits in February 2004.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found that the applicant's inability to work was primarily due to a pre-existing shoulder injury from a prior workplace incident, and there was insufficient medical evidence to prove the car accident caused an ongoing inability to perform her pre-accident employment beyond the termination date.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed.

The arbitrator awarded a limited housekeeping benefit of $15.00 per week for a period of approximately five months following the accident, based on an occupational therapy assessment.