Dr. Richard Kaminker

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, medical benefits for physiotherapy, and the cost of a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first allowed the applicant's late-filed medical evidence due to an administrative error.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit because he failed to provide a comparison of his pre- and post-accident activities.

The physiotherapy treatment plan was denied as the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden and the respondent's medical evidence indicated he had reached maximum medical recovery.

However, the Tribunal granted the cost of the chronic pain assessment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain specialist over the respondent's orthopaedic surgeon.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a non-earner benefit under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant did not meet the threshold of a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal applied the Heath framework and found that the applicant's accident-related fibromyalgia and chronic pain significantly impaired her ability to engage in her pre-accident activities, particularly caring for her family and maintaining her home.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant met the threshold and awarded the non-earner benefit with interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received caregiver benefits from her insurer.

The insurer terminated the benefits after 104 weeks, arguing she no longer met the test of suffering a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's physical injuries, combined with chronic pain and a diagnosed Somatoform Pain Disorder, continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay ongoing caregiver benefits but declined to order a special award, finding the insurer's denial was not unreasonable given the complex medical evidence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in August 2005.

Nine months later, she suffered severe disc herniations resulting in a cauda equina-like syndrome and a conversion disorder.

The insurer denied ongoing income replacement and attendant care benefits, arguing the disc herniations were not causally related to the accident.

The arbitrator found that the accident materially contributed to the disc herniations and the subsequent conversion disorder.

However, the arbitrator concluded the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as her combined physical (21%) and mental/behavioural (28%) whole person impairment rating was 43%, falling short of the 55% threshold.

The applicant was awarded an ongoing income replacement benefit and attendant care benefits capped at $3,000 per month for the 104-week period following the accident.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle.

The insurer paid income replacement benefits for 104 weeks but terminated them, arguing the applicant did not meet the more stringent test of complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The arbitrator found the applicant, who was functionally illiterate in English and had a history of heavy physical labour, suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments caused by the accident.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's expert evidence that the applicant was malingering, finding instead that he was completely disabled from working.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits.

However, his claim for a multidisciplinary pain management program was dismissed as he failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary, given a previous similar program had not yielded further recovery.