3 total
Insurer ordered to pay income replacement benefits and a $10,000 special award for unreasonably withholding payments.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), transportation expenses, and the cost of a medical assessment.
The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant had returned to work and did not meet the disability tests.
The arbitrator found the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment for the first 104 weeks and a complete inability to engage in suitable employment thereafter until she commenced a new career.
The arbitrator awarded the IRBs, transportation expenses, and assessment costs.
Furthermore, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay a $10,000 special award because it unreasonably withheld IRBs by failing to have its accountant review updated financial information that would have revealed flaws in its initial denial.
Defendant's threshold motion dismissed as plaintiff's chronic pain constituted a permanent, serious impairment.
Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory requirement of a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.
The plaintiff adduced evidence from multiple medical experts and lay witnesses demonstrating chronic pain that substantially interfered with her employment and daily living.
Despite some credibility issues regarding the plaintiff's employment history and surveillance footage, the court found the corroborating medical and lay evidence sufficient to establish the impairment.
The motion was dismissed.
Appeal of summary judgment dismissed as motion judge correctly found no evidence of over service.
The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondent.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that despite not having the benefit of the Combined Air decision, the motion judge developed a full appreciation of the case.
The motion judge was entitled to engage in a limited weighing of the evidence and correctly concluded there was no evidence of over service of alcohol by the respondent.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.