Matus Averbuch

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he was unable to perform his pre-accident work as a self-employed mason.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding insufficient contemporaneous medical evidence to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The adjudicator noted that functional testing was deemed invalid due to the applicant's sub-maximal effort, and no financial documentation was provided to demonstrate an actual loss of income during the disputed period.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and the cost of an assessment from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline limit of $3,500.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries did not fall within the Guideline because she suffered from chronic pain that was more than a sequelae of a predominantly minor injury.

The adjudicator approved four of the six disputed treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, noting they provided pain relief and increased function, but denied two plans that were either duplicative or showed minimal progress.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments, and both parties' requests for costs were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic treatment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG or that she had a pre-existing condition preventing maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The Tribunal also found the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and the cost of a psychological assessment from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries did not fall within the MIG because the accident caused an exacerbation of her pre-existing bi-compartmental knee osteoarthritis, which was not predominantly a minor injury.

However, the Tribunal denied the claims for chiropractic services, finding them not reasonable and necessary as they were not directed at the knee impairment.

The Tribunal granted the claim for a psychological assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary given the applicant's pre-existing mental health issues and the knee diagnosis.

The applicant was also awarded interest on the overdue payment for the assessment, but her request for costs was denied.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would preclude maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychological expert, finding that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment that would remove him from the MIG.

As the applicant's injuries were confined to the MIG, the disputed benefits exceeding the $3,500 cap were denied.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits after the applicant filed their written submissions late.

The applicant had requested an extension due to a power outage, which the Tribunal granted without requiring a formal notice of motion, leading to confusion for the respondent.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion to dismiss the claim, finding that the applicant should not bear the burden of the Tribunal's administrative oversight and that dismissing the claim for a one-day delay would be unfair.

The adjudicator adjusted the hearing schedule to allow the respondent to file supplementary submissions and address costs.

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

After her representative withdrew due to her failure to cooperate, the insurer brought a motion to dismiss the claim.

The applicant failed to participate in the pre-hearing or the motion teleconference despite being served with notice.

The arbitrator granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and awarded the insurer partial indemnity costs of $3,546.40.