Dr. Mel Perlmutter

The applicant sought payment for chiropractic and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer argued it was not liable due to the applicant's failure to provide requested medical records under s. 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the requested information was not reasonably required, as the insurer had already denied the claims on their merits.

However, on the substantive issues, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that neither treatment plan was reasonable and necessary given the preponderance of medical evidence, including multiple insurer examinations indicating no further need for treatment and a lengthy gap in seeking treatment.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for caregiver services, housekeeping expenses, and the costs of various medical assessments.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not the primary caregiver for his nephew's children prior to the accident, and that the invoices submitted for both caregiver and housekeeping expenses were unreliable and failed to establish the amounts claimed.

The claims for caregiver and housekeeping benefits were dismissed.

The arbitrator awarded the costs of a functional abilities evaluation and a reduced amount for an in-home assessment, but denied funding for neurological and orthopaedic assessments as they were not reasonably required.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while walking across an intersection and sustained physical and psychological injuries.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits based on an orthopaedic assessment.

The applicant sought arbitration, arguing she suffered from chronic pain with a significant psychological component that prevented her from working.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was completely unable to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited, preferring the evidence of her psychological experts over the insurer's assessors.

The arbitrator also granted a special award, finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by misfiling and ignoring a key psychological report that supported her claim.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including caregiver, housekeeping, and medical benefits, as well as the cost of a psychological assessment.

The insurer denied the claims on procedural grounds (late application) and substantive grounds.

The arbitrator held that the insurer could not rely on the late application because it failed to clearly warn the applicant of the consequences of non-compliance.

Substantively, the arbitrator dismissed the claims for caregiver and housekeeping benefits, finding the applicant was not the primary caregiver and did not suffer a substantial inability to perform housekeeping.

The claim for chiropractic treatment was also dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

However, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for the proposed psychological assessment, finding it was reasonably required based on the information available to the requesting psychologist.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, medical, and housekeeping benefits, which the insurer denied.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from accident-related depression that substantially disabled her from performing the essential tasks of her employment and housekeeping for a limited period.

The applicant was awarded income replacement and housekeeping benefits for the period from March to June 2005, along with interest.

Claims for ongoing income replacement, further medical benefits, examination expenses, and a special award were dismissed.