Robert G. Plate

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for medical treatment, housekeeping, and the cost of an orthopaedic examination.

The insurer denied the claims based on an insurer's examination which concluded the applicant had sustained an uncomplicated soft tissue injury that did not require further treatment.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence or call treating practitioners to support his claims.

The arbitrator accepted the insurer's expert evidence and found the applicant's evidence regarding his living arrangements and housekeeping needs to be implausible and contradictory.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging that a physician performed a surgical procedure without consent during ovarian cyst surgery, resulting in sterilization.

The claim ultimately proceeded solely in battery after the plaintiffs abandoned negligence.

The court held that applying Filshie clips to the left fallopian tube constituted a separate procedure that fell outside the scope of the consent provided, and there was no emergency justifying the step.

General consent language permitting additional procedures during surgery did not authorize a sterilizing intervention where the patient had expressed a desire to preserve fertility.

The physician was therefore liable in battery.

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

After failing to comply with undertakings and appearing unprepared for a hearing, the arbitrator issued an order granting a final opportunity for a hearing on the merits, subject to strict compliance with scheduling and production terms.

The applicant failed to contact the insurer to schedule a new hearing date within the ordered timeframe.

Consequently, the insurer requested dismissal.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's failure to comply with the prior order.

The insurer requested a preliminary issue hearing to determine whether the insured was precluded from proceeding to arbitration due to her refusal to attend a psychiatric examination scheduled by the insurer.

The arbitrator found that the insurer had ample notice of the insured's psychological symptoms but waited until after the pre-hearing to schedule the examination.

The arbitrator concluded the request was a tactical maneuver to bolster the insurer's case rather than for adjusting purposes.

The insurer's request was deemed unreasonable, and the insured was permitted to proceed to the arbitration hearing.