Dr. Rathbun

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement and housekeeping benefits from his insurer.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant failed to attend an insurer's examination and was no longer disabled.

The arbitrator found the applicant had a reasonable excuse for missing the examination due to confusing correspondence and language barriers.

The arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits for the initial period and up to February 17, 2004, finding insufficient evidence of disability beyond that date, as the applicant's leg numbness was likely a benign condition.

Housekeeping benefits were awarded at a reduced rate of $20 per week based on an in-home assessment, as the applicant's evidence regarding his pre-accident housekeeping was vague and unsupported.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for injuries sustained by a bus passenger when the driver braked suddenly to avoid a cyclist.

The trial judge awarded $22,500 in general damages for chronic back and hip strain, finding the injuries met the threshold under the Insurance Act.

On appeal, the defendants argued the trial judge erred in finding negligence, assessing the medical evidence, and failing to draw an adverse inference from the plaintiff not calling her initial treating physician.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and negligence.

The judgment was varied on consent only to correct a mathematical error in the statutory deductible.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for exercise therapy under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had pre-existing shoulder issues and lacked credibility regarding his medical history.

Relying on expert medical assessments, the arbitrator concluded the applicant had regained almost full mobility prior to the disputed therapy and did not have an impairment requiring the treatment.

The claims for medical benefits and a special award were dismissed.