23 total
Income replacement benefits reinstated; DAC assessor failed to properly consider the heavy physical demands of the applicant's prospective demolition job.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident just before starting a new job as a general labourer for a demolition company.
The insurer terminated his weekly income replacement benefits based on a Designated Assessment Centre report concluding he could return to work.
At arbitration, the arbitrator found that the DAC assessor failed to properly consider the specific, heavy physical demands of the applicant's prospective job, which included repeatedly swinging a sledgehammer and lifting up to 50 pounds.
The arbitrator concluded the applicant continued to suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and ordered the insurer to pay income replacement benefits for the disputed period, along with interest and expenses.
Arbitrator confirms applicant's identity in surveillance video; hearing expenses denied due to late admissions.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.
The insurer terminated benefits based on surveillance video allegedly showing the applicant working.
The applicant disputed his identity in the videos, prompting a preliminary issue hearing.
After reviewing the video evidence, photographs, and witness testimony, the arbitrator concluded the applicant was indeed the individual depicted in the September 15, 1993 surveillance tape.
The applicant's request for hearing expenses was denied because his late admissions unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.
Post-accident income deductions must be matched to the specific week earned without carrying forward excess.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits.
He subsequently returned to work intermittently, earning substantial post-accident income.
The insurer argued that 80% of all post-accident income should be deducted from benefits on a 'carry forward' basis, applying excess earnings against future benefits.
The arbitrator rejected this approach, finding it would act as a disincentive to rehabilitation and returning to work.
Instead, the arbitrator held that post-accident income must be matched directly to the specific weekly income benefit payable in the week it was earned, with no carry forward of any excess.