Michael P. Taylor

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits for 104 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, and the applicant sought ongoing income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to physical injuries, but did suffer such an inability due to psychological complications (severe depression and anxiety) until her condition stabilized.

The arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits for a closed period.

The claims for attendant care and housekeeping expenses were dismissed because the applicant failed to prove she incurred a cost or obligation to pay her husband for those services.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and dental treatments.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The arbitrator found the applicant's credibility to be lacking due to numerous discrepancies in her medical history and presentation.

The arbitrator concluded that the physiotherapy at the Rehab Centre was not reasonable, as the applicant had abandoned a previous clinic without cause and showed no significant improvement.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found insufficient objective evidence to support a diagnosis of a temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder caused by the accident, rejecting the applicant's dental treatment claim.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them on July 9, 1998.

The applicant sought arbitration, claiming ongoing physical and psychological impairments prevented him from returning to his pre-accident employment as a cabinet assembler.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's physical soft tissue injuries had resolved and that he magnified his physical symptoms.

However, the arbitrator accepted that the applicant suffered from depression, anxiety, and pain-focused behavior that disabled him from working.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's failure to attend recommended psychological treatment and exercise hampered his recovery, and that by December 9, 1998, his ongoing inability to work was due to his own choice not to rehabilitate himself.

Income replacement benefits were awarded for the period from July 9, 1998, to December 9, 1998.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought reinstatement of the benefits, claiming he was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a real estate agent.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, relying on independent medical assessments and surveillance evidence showing he had returned to work.

The application for further income replacement benefits was dismissed.

Following an arbitration where the applicant was denied income replacement benefits but awarded medical and rehabilitation benefits, the parties disputed the applicant's entitlement to expenses.

The arbitrator applied the criteria in Regulation 464/96, noting that success is only one factor and that the insurer's conduct in unnecessarily questioning doctors about an irrelevant pre-accident overdose prolonged the proceeding.

The applicant was awarded 80 percent of her legal fees and 100 percent of her assessable expenses, including fees for services subsequent to the arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them, arguing she was no longer disabled.

The applicant sought further income replacement benefits and payment for medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, noting her refusal to attempt a return to work and relying on the opinions of her treating physician and psychologist.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed.

However, the arbitrator allowed the claim for medical and rehabilitation expenses, finding the treatments reasonable and beneficial.

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

At the time of the accident, he was receiving Workers' Compensation Benefits for a prior work-related injury.

The arbitrator determined that the applicant's gross weekly income must be calculated by averaging his actual income over the four-week period preceding the accident, without disregarding periods of unemployment.

The arbitrator also held that the Workers' Compensation Benefits received by the applicant must be deducted from the weekly income benefits payable by the insurer.

The applicant was awarded weekly income benefits for a limited period, as the arbitrator found that his ongoing inability to work after January 19, 1994, was substantially caused by pre-existing conditions not related to the motor vehicle accident.