Dr. Soriano

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit, an attendant care benefit, and a treatment plan for psychological services following a motor vehicle accident on December 3, 2010.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were minor and the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish causation for the non-earner and attendant care benefits, noting her current complaints mimicked those from a prior 2008 accident for which she was already receiving benefits.

The Tribunal also found the claim for psychological services was statute-barred because the applicant failed to dispute the clear and unequivocal denial within the two-year limitation period.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), psychological treatment, and chiropractic treatment.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were caused by non-accident-related health issues (including diabetes and irregular menses) and a subsequent 2016 accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be an unreliable historian who exaggerated her complaints.

Applying the 'but for' test for causation, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove her inability to work or her need for psychological treatment were caused by the 2015 accident.

However, the Tribunal found the claimed chiropractic treatment was reasonable and necessary to treat accident-related pain.

The claims for IRBs, psychological treatment, a special award, and costs were dismissed, while the claim for chiropractic treatment was allowed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two minor motor vehicle accidents in 2011 and 2012.

He had previously suffered a severe workplace injury in 2002, resulting in chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, largely due to extensive surveillance showing him performing activities he claimed he could not do, and his failure to disclose his pre-existing conditions to his assessors.

Applying the 'but for' test for causation, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant's impairments were solely attributable to his 2002 workplace injury and that he suffered no verifiable decline in function following the motor vehicle accidents.

All claims for non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, medical benefits, and cost of examinations were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought the cost of three examinations (a functional abilities evaluation, a physiatry assessment, and a chiropractic assessment) five years post-accident.

The respondent denied the assessments as not reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator found that the applicant had returned to his pre-accident employment as a millwright without modifications and was able to perform his activities of daily living.

Preferring the evidence of the respondent's physiatrist who examined the applicant over the applicant's experts who only reviewed documentation, the adjudicator concluded the assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The claims for the cost of examinations, an award for unreasonably delayed payments, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and assessment benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

She argued that her pre-existing osteoporosis and alleged chronic pain syndrome removed her from the MIG.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility due to her refusal to answer questions regarding her opiate use and the suspension of her nursing licence.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's expert evidence and concluded there was no compelling evidence that her pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The claims for additional benefits were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement, attendant care, housekeeping, and medical benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in his testimony and medical evidence.

The applicant had resumed working as a personal fitness trainer and participating in bodybuilding competitions during the period he claimed to be disabled.

The claims for income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits were dismissed due to a lack of credible evidence.

However, the arbitrator approved one treatment plan for $3,510.00 and the cost of an MRI for $569.80, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the credible testimony of the treating chiropractor.