Dr. Warren Goldstein

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a medical benefit for physiotherapy, following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, as she continued to work part-time and insurer's examinations found no substantial impairment.

The Tribunal also denied the physiotherapy treatment plan, preferring the insurer's medical evidence which found no musculoskeletal injuries prior to an intervening second accident.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiffs were awarded $137,000 plus interest, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs' recovery exceeded the defendant's offer to settle of $125,000.

The court found the plaintiffs were the successful parties and awarded them partial indemnity costs.

After reducing fees for duplication and disallowing disbursements for experts who did not testify, the court awarded the plaintiffs $322,500 in costs.

The applicant sought an assessment of his arbitration expenses following a decision that denied his claim for income replacement benefits but allowed his claim for housekeeping expenses.

The applicant claimed $35,691.16 in legal fees and disbursements.

The arbitrator reduced the hourly rate and preparation time claimed by the applicant's counsel, finding them excessive given the complexity of the case and counsel's conduct.

The arbitrator also reduced certain disbursements, including the cost of an accountant's report and travel expenses.

The insurer was ordered to pay the applicant $18,424.74 in arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and housekeeping expenses.

The insurer denied the claims.

At arbitration, the central issue was whether the applicant was an employee or self-employed, which dictated the information required to calculate his IRB.

The arbitrator found the applicant was self-employed and had failed to provide the necessary financial information to calculate the benefit, disentitling him to IRBs under section 33 of the SABS-1996.

However, the arbitrator awarded housekeeping expenses based on medical evidence of his impairments and ordered the insurer to pay the applicant's arbitration expenses.

Surveillance evidence obtained deceptively by the insurer was excluded.