The claimant, an articling student, sought entitlement to income replacement benefits and one psychological assessment plan. The claimant led a letter as evidence which was by the firm wishing him success in his future endeavours; it did not state that he was terminated. Adjudicator Truong found that the claimant was not terminated due to injury and denied entitlement.
The claimant sought entitlement to ongoing IRBs. Adjudicator Sewrattan applied a three-part test: (1) Was the claimant employed at the time of the accident, (2) Causation; did the claimant sustain an impairment preventing him/her from returning to work, and (3) Does the claimant suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his/her employment, (a) what are the essential tasks of employment, and (b) is the claimant substantially unable to perform said tasks. The claimant’s entitlement claim was dismissed.
The claimant sought entitlement to ongoing IRBs. Adjudicator Sewrattan applied a three-part test: (1) Was the claimant employed at the time of the accident, (2) Causation; did the claimant sustain an impairment preventing him/her from returning to work, and (3) Does the claimant suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his/her employment, (a) what are the essential tasks of employment, and (b) is the claimant substantially unable to perform said tasks. The claimant’s entitlement claim was dismissed.
The claimant sought entitlement to income replacement benefits along with two treatment plans, costs, and a special award. Adjudicator Bass reviewed the medical evidence, along with surveillance submitted by the insurer. It was found that the claimant’s reports were “overly pessimistic in light of the surveillance evidence from only a few months later.” As a result, it was concluded that the claimant did not sustain a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment. The treatment plans claimed were also denied as Adjudicator Bass found the claimant’s injuries to be minor.
The claimant sought entitlement to income replacement benefits and an orthopaedic assessment. The insurer paid IRBs for four months and terminated them after a number of IE reports. The orthopaedic assessment was denied based on a MIG position. As a preliminary issue, the insurer sought to add the claimant’s LinkedIn page to show the claimant was working and therefore required IRB repayment. Adjudicator Treksler allowed the new evidence to be admitted, but found the page insufficient evidence to warrant repayment of IRBs. Adjudicator Treksler found that the claimant was entitled to IRBs and held that he should be removed from the MIG. The fact that the claimant did not return to his employment, but instead, went to school in a different field was seen as supporting the IRB claim.
The claimant sought an order for IRBs in the amount of $280 per week. Adjudicator An concluded that the claimant suffered a substantial inability to engage in the essential tasks of her employment up to the date of her return to work.
The claimant sought IRBs in the amount of $400 per week. Adjudicator Marzinotto allowed the admission of surveillance evidence. She also allowed the admission of a report without an Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. In terms of the benefits in dispute, the adjudicator denied the claim for IRBs, stating that the claimant had not proved his entitlement and had not provided information that would allow the Tribunal to calculate the weekly quantum.
The claimant sought IRBs and medical marijuana. The adjudicator dismissed the IRBs claim because the claimant had refused to provide post-accident income records. The claim for medical marijuana was dismissed because the claimant did not provide a proper “medical document” supporting the need for medical marijuana. The term “medical document” is defined in the federal Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations.
The claimant sought IRBs at a rate above the weekly rate paid by the insurer. The claimant also sought removal from the MIG. Adjudicator Gottfried dismissed the claim for increased IRBs as the claimant had not provided any documentation to support increasing the weekly quantum. The adjudicator also noted that entitlement to ongoing IRBs does not mean one’s injuries are non-MIG. The claimant was restricted to MIG-level medical benefits
Following an accident, the self-employed claimant stopped operating his business in January 2016. Adjudicator Sewrattan concluded that the IRB calculation could not take into account business losses, as the claimant did not have business losses (as calculated by the Income Tax Act) after he ceased operations of his business. In terms of medical benefits, the adjudicator concluded that the claimant’s injuries did not fall in the MIG and wrote that pain reduction is a valid goal when assessing whether a treatment plan is reasonable and necessary.
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP