Mr. Atila Balaban

The applicant sought expenses following a successful arbitration for statutory accident benefits.

The parties agreed on most costs but disputed the allowability of three expert reports totaling $4,000.

The arbitrator found that the reports from an exercise physiologist and a physician were necessary for the conduct of the arbitration, as they established the continuity of the applicant's disability and chronic pain syndrome.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant $29,589.48 in total expenses, plus $209.50 for the costs of the expense hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, attendant care, housekeeping, and medical benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's left knee impairment was caused by the accident, despite pre-existing arthritis, and that his ongoing impairments rendered him completely unable to engage in any suitable employment, entitling him to ongoing income replacement benefits.

Claims for attendant care and medical benefits were dismissed as the applicant was independent in self-care and the proposed treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

Housekeeping benefits were granted in part.

The arbitrator also awarded interest at the rate of 2% per month under the Old SABS, finding that the transitional provisions of the New SABS did not erode the right to the old interest rate for benefits that became overdue.

The insurer applied to vary or revoke a 2007 order to pay income replacement benefits, but sought to withdraw the application during the hearing, claiming its psychological expert changed his opinion.

The arbitrator allowed the withdrawal but imposed a term precluding the insurer from filing further applications regarding the 2007 order until it substantiated the expert's change of opinion.

The arbitrator also assessed the insured's expenses, awarding $18,204.83 for legal fees and disbursements, including reduced amounts for several expert reports that were deemed inefficient or of limited value.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits.

The insurer denied the benefits based on its assessors' reports, which concluded the applicant could return to his pre-accident employment as a heavy labourer.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence and his experts' reports more credible, noting the insurer's assessors lacked complete information and ignored the applicant's chronic pain.

The arbitrator held that the applicant met the test for IRBs both before and after the 104-week mark, as he suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The requested medical benefits were also found to be reasonable and necessary.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the claim for a special award, finding the insurer did not act unreasonably in relying on its medical assessors, despite the flaws in their reports.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The Insurer terminated income replacement and housekeeping benefits based on insurer's examinations.

The arbitrator found the Applicant's evidence and her medical assessors' opinions credible, establishing that her physical and psychological impairments substantially prevented her from performing her pre-accident employment and housekeeping tasks.

The arbitrator rejected the Insurer's assessors' evidence as flawed and unpersuasive.

The Applicant was awarded income replacement and housekeeping benefits for the 104-week period, with interest.

Claims for post-104 week benefits were dismissed on a technical basis without prejudice.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the Insurer's reliance on its assessors, though ultimately unsuccessful, was not unreasonable.