Dr. Wolf

This trial ruling addresses the admissibility and content of Ms. Pollard's summary charts for future care costs in two personal injury actions.

The court clarified the scope of Ms. Pollard's expert qualifications, limiting her opinions to unit costs and excluding recommendations on specific treatments, dosages, or frequencies unless supported by qualified medical evidence.

The ruling provides guidance on what items can be included in the summary charts for jury consideration, emphasizing the need for "reasonable evidence" and distinguishing between expert opinion and jury common sense.

The court issued a ruling on the formulation of jury questions in a civil trial involving a motor vehicle accident.

The judge addressed disagreements between the plaintiff and defendant counsel regarding the wording and inclusion of specific questions.

Key determinations included the necessity of separate questions for past versus future losses and different damage types, the appropriateness of using the term "negligent" rather than "liable" the requirement for a distinct causation question, and the decision to exclude a question asking for particulars of negligence, given the straightforward nature of the rear-end collision case.

In a personal injury trial, the defendants brought a motion to exclude the evidence of the plaintiffs' future care expert, Yvonne Pollard.

The defendants argued that Ms. Pollard's reports lacked factual foundation because they relied heavily on opinions from medical experts whom the plaintiffs had previously elected not to call, following a prior ruling limiting the number of duplicative experts.

The plaintiff, Kenisha Desmond, argued that Ms. Pollard's reports had an admissible factual basis and that her evidence was crucial for future care costs.

The court denied the defendants' motion, finding that sufficient evidentiary foundation existed from other called experts and potentially from future witnesses.

However, the court clarified that the plaintiff could not introduce reports from the uncalled, duplicative experts through Ms. Pollard, as they would constitute inadmissible hearsay.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits and a catastrophic impairment (CAT) designation following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the accident contributed to the applicant's psychological impairment, the applicant's self-reports were not credible due to significant inconsistencies regarding his pre-accident health and functional status.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning and therefore did not meet the CAT threshold.

All claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care, and medical benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable, necessary, or incurred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a psychological impairment, chronic pain syndrome, or carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of the accident, and failed to prove a causal link between her severe bilateral neural foraminal stenosis and the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans and assessment were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied further benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a fractured sternum and psychological impairments, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and certain medical/assessment costs.

Furthermore, the Tribunal granted a special award of 40% of the outstanding attendant care benefits, finding the respondent unreasonably withheld payment by intentionally misrepresenting its assessors' findings to keep the applicant within the MIG.

The applicant sought payment for various medical treatments, assessments, disability certificates, and Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment that would remove him from the MIG.

Consequently, the claims for medical benefits and assessments were denied.

Furthermore, while the applicant may have been entitled to IRBs, he failed to provide sufficient financial records to calculate the quantum, resulting in an award of $0 per week.