Category: Income Replacement Benefits

Baranov v. Aviva General Insurance (19-011094)

The claimant applied to the LAT disputing the quantum of IRBs he was entitled to. He also claimed the denied portions of two psychological treatment plans. The claimant was self-employed prior to the accident as a renovation contractor. He elected to use the 52 weeks of earnings prior to the accident rather than the last completed taxation year. Adjudicator Farlam accepted the accounting report of the insurer as it was based on the documentation provided by the claimant. The claimant’s own accountant used various assumptions and oral evidence from the claimant that was not supported by financial documentation. For example, the claimant did not provide purchase orders, invoices, sales summary, or time records. Adjudicator Farlam also denied the disputed portions of the psychological treatment plans. She accepted that the insurer’s decision to allow $99.75 per hour for psychotherapy was appropriate (rather than the $224.42 per hour claimed). She also held that the claimant failed to prove why “documentation support activity” was reasonable and necessary. The special award claim was also dismissed. The insurer’s delay in payment of IRBs was due to the claimant’s failure to provide financial documentation.

K.K. v. Aviva General Insurance (18-012611)

The claimant sought entitlement to post-104 week IRBs, physiotherapy, and a special award. Adjudicator Mather granted the claim for ongoing IRBs, but dismissed the claim for further physical therapy. She also granted a special award of 50 percent on IRBs. The claimant was a self-employed taxi driver for over a decade prior to the accident. He suffered a concussion in the subject accident which led to psychological impairments. He was also in a second accident and made a claim for accident benefits with the same insurer. The insurer denied IRBs based on IEs completed with regard to the subject accident (which concluded he did not have a psychological disorder) despite having IEs from the second accident in which the claimant was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, general anxiety, panic attacks, and vehicular phobia. The psychological IE in the subject accident ignored various relevant factors and cherry-picked evidence that was supportive of denying IRBs (such as the claimant attempting a return to work for a few hours per day). Given the claimant’s lack of other relevant job experience and poor English skills, there were no other potential types of employment that were suitable for him. Adjudicator Mather found the insurer’s denial of IRBs to be unacceptable. She held that the insurer failed in its adjusting of the claim by ignoring the psychological diagnoses in its own IEs related to the second accident. She also noted that the insurer continued to approve psychotherapy while taking the position the claimant did not have a psychological impairment preventing him from working. The claimed physiotherapy was dismissed as the claimant did not provide evidence of the need for further physical therapy. He also failed to provide evidence of treatment received to date or the progress that physical treatment provided.

Staszewski v. Intact Insurance Company (19-012409)

The claimant applied to the LAT seeking entitlement to pre- and post-104 IRBs. Three medicolegal reports noted the claimant had returned to work in some capacity since the accident. The insurer suspended the claimant’s entitlement to IRBs pursuant to section 33 of the SABS for failure to provide documentation regarding post-accident employment and income. The claimant argued that the insurer had suspended IRBs without justification. Adjudicator Parish found that the insurer was justified in requesting further documentation to confirm whether the claimant earned any post-accident income. An adverse inference was drawn relating to the claimant’s refusal to produce bank statements. Adjudicator Parish found that the insurer was not liable to pay IRBs to the claimant, pursuant to section 33(6) of the SABS.

P.B. v. The Co-operators Insurance Company (19-008343)

The claimant was receiving IRBs of $400 per week. She settled her action against her LTD provider. The LTD release indicated that it covered all claims being made against the LTD provider, including punitive damages and costs. The insurer argued that it was entitled to deduct from IRBs the amounts received from the LTD settlement. Adjudicator Boyce disagreed with the insurer and held that it could not deduct the settlement. The inclusion of other types of compensation in the LTD release meant that the settlement could not be treated as income replacement assistance. The release did not provide any further information to allow the insurer to determine which amounts were for LTD benefits and which amounts were for other compensation. While the insurer improperly deducted the LTD settlement from IRBs, Adjudicator Boyce held that a special award was not warranted. He accepted that the facts of the case presented a genuine dispute over the deductibility of the LTD settlement.

M.M. v. Aviva Insurance Co. (17-006475)

The claimant requested reconsideration of Adjudicator Boyce’s decision in which he determined that the claimant was not entitled to IRBs (among other things). Adjudicator Boyce again reviewed the submissions and evidence before him and upheld his previous decision. The claimant alleged that accepting the surveillance evidence presented by the insurer did not show psychological or emotional struggle. While Adjudicator Boyce agreed, as he had in his original decision, he noted that while video evidence did not show psychological impacts, it did show that the claimant was working at her job and doing all of the required tasks she had told independent assessors she was unable to perform; thus showing she had an ability to return to her pre-accident employment. The reconsideration was dismissed.

S.A. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (18-004334)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs in the amount of $195.81 per week, the cost of an IRB calculation report, interest and a special award. The claimant submitted that from March 9, 2016 to April 30, 2016, he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a floor installer due to the physical and psychological impairments he sustained. The claimant was working approximately 10 hours per day as a floor installer and was also employed as a server. The claimant began to receive chiropractic treatment a few weeks post-accident. According to the OCF-3, the claimant was said to be unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment, but was able to return on modified duties and specifically, “the applicant reports returning to work despite medical advice to refrain from work”. The insurer received a second copy of the OCF-3, one day prior to the claimant’s return to work, but the OCF-3 was altered to remove the information that the claimant had returned to work post-accident and modified duties were no longer listed as being available. Adjudicator Gosio concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the IRB as the claimant only saw his family physician once for accident related issues, he had returned to his pre-accident employment with modifications, and the medical evidence suggested that he was dealing with primarily soft tissue injuries that were successfully managed through treatment modalities. There was no evidence or submissions which indicated that the claimant was suffering from anxiety. With regards to the IRB calculation report, Adjudicator Gosio found that the report was reasonable and necessary as the claimant was self employed, which could complicate the calculation and having a member of a designated body prepare the report was acceptable in the circumstances.

S.S. v. The Personal Insurance Company (19-004026)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs and removal from the MIG. Adjudicator Lake concluded that the claimant was not entitled to IRBs, but that his injuries fell outside of the MIG. With regard to IRBs, the claimant failed to prove that he was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment. A note from the claimant’s family physician was not persuasive because the claimant had not attended the physician to get the note nor had he attended for six months. The claimant also was not attending for any physical treatment for his symptoms. Regarding the MIG, Adjudicator Lake accepted that the claimant suffered from psychological symptoms including anxiety.

L.A. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (19-007357)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs. While he was unemployed at the time of the accident, he argued that he was receiving EI benefits. The insurer argued that the claimant’s EI benefits had expired one week before the accident and he was therefore not entitled to IRBs. Adjudicator Johal agreed with the insurer. The claimant was required to prove that he was receiving EI benefits when the accident occurred. While the claimant did receive a cheque from EI after the accident, it was for a period ending prior to the accident and his benefits period was at an end.

M.V. v. Aviva General Insurance Company (18-011523)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs and removal from the MIG. Vice Chair Farlam concluded that the claimant was not entitled to IRBs and that his injuries fell within the MIG. The medical evidence provided showed only soft tissue injuries, and insufficient objective evidence was led regarding chronic pain or psychological impairment. There were also multiple inconsistencies with the claimant’s reporting that called into question the medical opinions based on the claimant’s self-reported symptoms. Regarding IRBs, the claimant himself said during IE assessments that he was not disabled from working from a psychological perspective, and no evidence from the family physician was submitted regarding the claimant’s ability to return to work.

R.T. v. Aviva General Insurance (19-007347)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs and further physiotherapy treatment. Adjudicator Watt dismissed both claims. He held that the claimant failed to submit evidence that would prove that pain prevented her from returning to work. He also noted that the claimant was self-limiting in assessments and that objective testing showed full ranges of motion. The proposed treatment plan did not comment on why further passive therapy was required, or what relief may result from further treatment. The claimant was found to have met maximal medical recovery from such treatment.