Dr. Sawa

The applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident in Georgia and sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The parties' medical experts disagreed on the applicant's whole person impairment (WPI) rating, with the applicant's experts assessing it between 62% and 71%, and the insurer's experts assessing it between 48% and 51%.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the applicant's physical and psychological impairments, when combined, exceeded the 55% threshold.

The arbitrator also found that the accident materially contributed to the applicant's impairments, including his atrial fibrillation and peripheral neuropathy, despite the insurer's arguments regarding pre-existing susceptibility.

The applicant was found to have sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a multi-vehicle highway collision.

He lost control of his vehicle after being cut off by an unidentified driver, struck the median, and was subsequently T-boned by the defendant's vehicle.

The court found the unidentified driver 70% liable and the defendant 30% liable for following too closely.

The plaintiff was awarded over $3.2 million in damages, primarily for future care costs.

The plaintiff's claim against his own insurer for unidentified motorist coverage was dismissed because the identified defendant was found partially liable.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a further defence medical examination by a neurologist regarding Bell’s Palsy allegedly arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that a second defence medical was unnecessary and would delay the scheduled pre-trial and trial.

The court considered the governing principles under Rule 33 and the Courts of Justice Act concerning further medical examinations and emphasized fairness and the need for each party to present appropriate expert evidence.

The court found that the defendant had no prior notice that Bell’s Palsy would be advanced as a causally related injury until a late-served medical report.

In the circumstances, fairness required permitting the defence an opportunity to assess the condition through a further examination.

The applicant was injured in multiple motor vehicle accidents, most notably in September 1996.

She claimed the cost of psychological treatment, which the insurer denied, arguing the need for treatment arose from subsequent accidents or life events.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's need for psychological treatment largely stemmed from the September 1996 accident and that the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

The arbitrator also found that the insurer unreasonably withheld and delayed payment of the benefits, failing to comply with its obligation to pay pending resolution of the dispute and failing to arrange a timely assessment.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the treatment, interest, and a special award of $5,000.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration hearing on the basis that the claimant refused to attend an insurer's medical examination (IME) with a neuro-psychiatrist.

The claimant argued the request was neither reasonable nor timely, as it was made close to the hearing date and the insurer already had numerous assessments in its favour.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's request was not reasonably necessary, noting that the insurer had ample time to request the IME earlier and that the chosen doctor had already concluded from a paper review that the claimant's injuries were not accident-related.

The motion was dismissed and the arbitration was ordered to proceed.