James A. Schmidt

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a self-employed steel worker, met the pre-104 week IRB test because his accident-related impairments rendered him substantially unable to perform the heavy physical demands of his pre-accident employment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for post-104 week IRBs, finding the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited, as he continued to perform modified and sedentary duties for his business.

The applicant was awarded pre-104 IRBs and interest on overdue payments.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, including neck and back strain, were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not suffer a psychological impairment that would remove her from the MIG, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's due to the latter's failure to consider relevant clinical notes and the applicant's non-disclosure of alcohol use.

The application for medical and rehabilitation benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 treatment cap had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that his injuries were not minor due to chronic pain, neurological injury, post-concussive syndrome, pre-existing conditions, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's s. 44 psychological assessment over the applicant's evidence and rejected the applicant's argument that cultural differences invalidated the respondent's assessment.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent insurance company filed a request for reconsideration of an adjudicator's interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss the applicant's claim for housekeeping benefits.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, noting that under the recently amended Rule 18.1 of the Tribunal's Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.