Dr. Michael Schwartz

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing an adolescent patient and engaging in disgraceful conduct towards another adolescent boy.

The Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of his certificate of registration.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors of fact and held his evidence to an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee properly evaluated the evidence, made reasonable credibility findings, and correctly concluded the conduct amounted to masturbation requiring mandatory revocation.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and income replacement benefits, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he sustained a psychological impairment or chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which was consistent with the family physician's records showing no psychological complaints and a return to full-time work.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed because the applicant failed to submit a completed Disability Certificate prior to the period claimed.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

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

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims of chronic pain or psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which included objective psychometric testing.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the application.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended he suffered psychological impairments removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological issues were not proven to be accident-related, keeping him within the MIG's $3,500 limit.

The requested psychological assessment was deemed reasonable and necessary but only payable up to the MIG limit, while the psychological treatment and a claim for a special award were denied.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and a determination of catastrophic impairment following a 2008 motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in employment for the IRB claim.

The medical benefit claim was not properly linked to the 2008 accident.

The catastrophic impairment claim failed because the applicant's assessments did not properly account for pre-existing conditions as required by the AMA Guides, and the evidence did not establish a marked impairment resulting directly from the 2008 accident.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed severe depression and anxiety.

The insurer terminated her loss of earning capacity benefits, arguing her residual earning capacity was greater than her pre-accident earning capacity based on a RECDAC assessment suggesting she could work part-time as a general office clerk.

The arbitrator rejected the RECDAC's conclusion, finding the work simulation inadequate and preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating psychiatrist and a vocational rehabilitation specialist.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's psychological impairments rendered her residual earning capacity zero.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

At the time of the accident, he was receiving Workers' Compensation Benefits for a prior work-related injury.

The arbitrator determined that the applicant's gross weekly income must be calculated by averaging his actual income over the four-week period preceding the accident, without disregarding periods of unemployment.

The arbitrator also held that the Workers' Compensation Benefits received by the applicant must be deducted from the weekly income benefits payable by the insurer.

The applicant was awarded weekly income benefits for a limited period, as the arbitrator found that his ongoing inability to work after January 19, 1994, was substantially caused by pre-existing conditions not related to the motor vehicle accident.