Reynold Kim

This endorsement concerns a motion for court approval of a proposed settlement affecting minor plaintiffs in a wrongful death claim arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The court found the settlement and counsel fees to be fair and reasonable, and confirmed compliance with Rule 7.08.

The judge commended counsel for their thorough preparation and granted judgment in the agreed form.

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

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

The applicant claimed her chronic low back pain and an annular tear revealed on an MRI removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to connect the annular tear to the accident, noting a significant delay in reporting back pain.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant was not subject to the Minor Injury Guideline and was entitled to a non-earner benefit and treatment plans.

The insurer argued the adjudicator erred in fact and law regarding causation, ignored medical evidence, and violated procedural fairness by not addressing costs.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that while the adjudicator made a minor factual error regarding the withholding of medical records, it would not have changed the outcome.

The adjudicator properly applied the 'but for' test for causation and did not deny procedural fairness in declining to award costs against a successful and credible applicant.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) after resigning from one job and being terminated from another.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant could perform the essential tasks of their pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that the test for IRBs is based on the essential tasks of the employment held at the time of the accident, not subsequent employment.

As there was no medical evidence demonstrating an inability to perform the pre-accident tasks, the claim for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits for two physiotherapy treatment plans that were partially denied by the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving the disputed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted evidence of the insurer's medical expert, who opined that the applicant was near maximum medical recovery and required home-based exercise rather than further facility-based passive physiotherapy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in two separate motor vehicle accidents in February 2015 and April 2016.

She sought medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 limit of the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) for both accidents, arguing she suffered psychological injuries and had pre-existing conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a psychological diagnosis or a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery if subjected to the MIG limits.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries for both accidents fell within the MIG, and she was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

The applicant was injured in three motor vehicle accidents and sought statutory accident benefits.

During the arbitration hearing, the insurer sought to introduce three surveillance videotapes from September 2002 into evidence.

It was revealed that the insurer also possessed a fourth videotape from November 2003, which it had not disclosed and did not intend to produce.

The applicant brought an interlocutory motion to exclude the surveillance evidence.

The arbitrator held that under Rule 40 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, an insurer must produce all surveillance material generated in relation to the issues in dispute if it intends to rely on any portion of it.

The insurer was not permitted to 'pick and choose' which tapes to produce.

The motion was granted, and the insurer was not permitted to file the three September 2002 videotapes into evidence.

The applicant, injured in three motor vehicle accidents, sought an adjournment of an ongoing arbitration hearing regarding statutory accident benefits.

The applicant requested the delay to add a claim for income replacement benefits and to await the results of multi-disciplinary examinations requested by the insurer.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the income replacement benefit claim was not yet in dispute and that delaying the hearing to await unknown assessment results would run counter to the goals of timeliness and efficiency.

The arbitrator also noted that the pending assessments would not assist in determining the existing issues, such as catastrophic impairment.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's preliminary order dismissing its motion to bar the insured's application for arbitration.

The insurer argued the insured failed to comply with section 33 of the SABS by not providing requested medical records in a timely manner.

The arbitrator had found the insured satisfied her obligations by authorizing the release of the records and requesting them through her counsel, noting she could not compel third parties to produce them.

The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal, finding it did not have obvious merit and that the fairest and most expeditious way to proceed was for the remaining entitlement issues to be heard at the scheduled arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied benefits and argued that the applicant was precluded from proceeding to mediation and arbitration because she filed her application late, failed to provide requested medical information, and failed to attend medical examinations and assessments.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had a reasonable excuse for the late application, as her doctor failed to complete it promptly.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant had provided the necessary authorizations for medical records and was not responsible for third-party delays in producing them.

Furthermore, the applicant did not fail to make herself reasonably available for examinations, as the insurer failed to provide reasonable notice.

The insurer's preliminary objections were dismissed, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration.