Dr. Ross Roussev

The defendants brought a motion seeking orders for the plaintiff to undergo two medical examinations—one by an orthopedic surgeon and one by a neurologist.

The court considered whether these examinations were necessary for trial fairness or duplicative of prior assessments.

The court found that the requested examinations were not duplicative and were necessary to ensure fairness, and ordered them to proceed.

The court declined to order the plaintiff to pay a cancellation fee for a missed appointment due to her chronic pain, but awarded the defendants costs of the motion.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

In a previous 2020 decision, the Tribunal found the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant brought a second application seeking removal from the MIG based on alleged new medical evidence and claiming entitlement to additional treatment plans.

The Tribunal held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the applicant from relitigating the MIG issue, as the new medical reports did not constitute fresh evidence that would conclusively impeach the original result.

The Tribunal also found the respondent provided proper notice of denial for the disputed treatment plans.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, who suffered a serious brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, appealed an arbitrator's decision terminating his non-earner benefits as of August 31, 2002.

The arbitrator had found that by September 2002, the appellant had resumed quality participation in enough of his pre-accident activities, such as socializing and attending school, that he no longer suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the arbitrator's holistic assessment of the appellant's pre- and post-accident activities and potential.

The applicant, who was 17 years old and expelled from school at the time, suffered a serious brain injury in a motor vehicle accident.

He applied for a non-earner benefit, which the insurer disputed.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life immediately following the accident, as his participation in activities was tempered by the effects of medication and his injuries.

However, by September 2002, the applicant had ceased taking the medication, resumed his pre-accident social life, and demonstrated independence, returning to a trajectory consistent with his pre-accident potential.

The arbitrator awarded the non-earner benefit for the period from September 18, 2001, to August 31, 2002, along with interest on overdue payments.

The applicant, a taxi driver, was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in March and April 1996.

The insurer paid income replacement benefits until May 1997, when it terminated them on the basis that the applicant could return to work.

The applicant sought ongoing benefits until his actual return to work in May 1998, as well as interest on a previously agreed-upon shortfall in the weekly benefit rate.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's ongoing soft tissue pain and post-traumatic vertigo prevented him from performing the essential tasks of a taxi driver, which included long shifts and heavy lifting, until May 1998.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's argument that the applicant's disability was caused by extraneous conditions such as a prior head injury or varicose veins.

The arbitrator also held that the insurer was liable for interest on the shortfall of benefits from the date the completed application was received, not from the date the applicant provided updated income information.