S. M. Liao

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal excluded several of the applicant's medical reports because they were submitted eight months past the document exchange deadline, prejudicing the respondent.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary insurer examination reports, which found no significant functional impairments.

The claim for the physiotherapy treatment plan was also dismissed as the applicant provided minimal argument or evidence to demonstrate it was reasonable and necessary.

The defendant brought a motion seeking two orders: a defence medical examination with an orthopaedic surgeon and an in-home cost of care assessment with an occupational therapist.

The court dismissed the request for the orthopaedic examination, finding it would merely corroborate an existing physiatrist's report and was not necessary for trial fairness.

However, the court granted the request for the in-home cost of care assessment, noting significant changes in the plaintiff's condition and living circumstances since the last report, and that the assessment was necessary for the defendant to fairly meet the plaintiff's substantial future cost of care claim, particularly regarding psychological and psychiatric impacts not fully covered by previous physical assessments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated weekly income benefits after 156 weeks.

The applicant sought ongoing benefits, claiming she was continuously prevented from working as a dressmaker due to chronic pain and fibromyalgia.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for ongoing benefits, relying heavily on surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's reported functional limitations.

However, the arbitrator found that collateral benefits received by the applicant from private disability policies were not deductible from her pre-156 week income benefits, ordering the insurer to pay the shortfall with interest.

The applicant, a self-employed baker and greenhouse operator, was injured in a head-on motor vehicle collision.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits at the 104-week mark, arguing she was no longer disabled and seeking repayment for allegedly overstated pre-accident income.

The arbitrator found the applicant remained substantially disabled from the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, relying heavily on compelling lay witness testimony regarding her post-accident cognitive and physical decline.

The arbitrator also accepted the applicant's evidence regarding her pre-accident earnings, setting the ongoing benefit at $634.82 weekly and ordering the insurer to pay $34,233 in arrears.