Dr. Shawn Scherer

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for 104 weeks.

The respondent terminated IRBs at the 104-week mark.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for ongoing IRBs.

The Tribunal held that the stricter post-104 test applied, requiring the applicant to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The Tribunal found the applicant's expert evidence unpersuasive and noted the lack of supportive evidence from her long-term family doctor.

The application for ongoing IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The plaintiff was shopping at the defendant's store when an employee accidentally discharged a fire extinguisher in his face.

The defendant admitted liability but disputed causation and damages, arguing the plaintiff's subsequent severe respiratory issues were a natural progression of a pre-existing illness.

The court applied the 'but for' test and the thin skull doctrine, finding that the incident caused the plaintiff to develop Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS).

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in non-pecuniary damages, along with significant awards for past and future income loss, and subrogated claims.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2007 and sought payment for a physical therapy treatment plan proposed in 2014.

The insurer denied the claim based on an insurer's examination which concluded that the applicant had already received appropriate facility-based treatment and required no further treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's medical evidence was outdated and insufficient to prove that the proposed treatment was reasonable and necessary seven years post-accident.

The application for the medical benefit was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, housekeeping, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's chronic pain and psychological impairments were not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator applied the material contribution test and found the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing conditions, causing permanent impairment to her right shoulder and psychological disorders.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits, certain medical and assessment costs, and interest, but her claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed due to insufficient credible evidence.