Dr. S.W. Wong

The applicant sought post-104 week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits based on insurer's examinations concluding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's experts, noting the applicant exaggerated his pain symptoms and his alleged impairments lacked an objective basis causally linked to the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found that the applicant's injuries, which included chronic pain, a head injury resulting in hearing impairment, and psychological impairments, took him outside the MIG.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for the disputed medical benefits and the costs of various examinations.

Although the applicant established an entitlement to attendant care benefits, the claim was dismissed because the quantum could not be proven under section 19(3)4 of the Schedule.

The arbitrator also ordered the insurer to pay a $5,000 special award for unreasonably delaying and withholding benefits, noting the insurer's failure to properly investigate the applicant's head injury and chronic pain.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The Insurer terminated income replacement and housekeeping benefits based on insurer's examinations.

The arbitrator found the Applicant's evidence and her medical assessors' opinions credible, establishing that her physical and psychological impairments substantially prevented her from performing her pre-accident employment and housekeeping tasks.

The arbitrator rejected the Insurer's assessors' evidence as flawed and unpersuasive.

The Applicant was awarded income replacement and housekeeping benefits for the 104-week period, with interest.

Claims for post-104 week benefits were dismissed on a technical basis without prejudice.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the Insurer's reliance on its assessors, though ultimately unsuccessful, was not unreasonable.