Robert Ancell

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitration decision that found the respondent insured was entitled to ongoing weekly income benefits after the 156-week mark.

The insurer argued the arbitrator erred in finding that the respondent could not work as a locksmith without an apprenticeship and that working as a security guard was not a suitable alternative occupation.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the arbitrator's assessment of the expert evidence or the conclusion that the respondent lacked the education, training, or experience to engage in the suggested occupations without further retraining.

The applicant, a drywall finisher, suffered forearm fractures in a motorcycle accident and received weekly income benefits for three years.

The insurer terminated benefits under section 12(5)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, arguing the applicant could perform alternative employment.

The arbitrator found that the alternative occupations proposed by the insurer were either physically unsuitable or required experience the applicant lacked.

The arbitrator ordered the reinstatement of weekly income benefits but denied the applicant's specific request for retraining as an electronics engineering technician, noting other viable vocational paths existed.