The claimant applied to the LAT for entitlement to IRBs of $400 per week ongoing from the date of loss, a treatment plan for physical therapy, and a special award. The insurer agreed that the claimant met the medical test for IRBs, but disagreed on the quantum. The claimant nevertheless requested that the LAT order the insurer to pay IRBs on an ongoing basis. Adjudicator Johal held that she did not have jurisdiction to order the insurer to pay IRBs on an ongoing basis, as there was no dispute between the claimant and the insurer. She declined to follow FSCO cases which had made such orders. In terms of the IRB quantum, Adjudicator Johal accepted the insurer’s calculations. The claimant was self-employed as a 50 percent owner of a cleaning company with her husband. The claimant and insurer disagreed on how to treat post-accident subcontractor expenses. The claimant’s accountants attributed the full amount of subcontract expenses to the claimant. The insurer’s accountants attributed only 50 percent of the expenses. Adjudicator Johal rejected the claimant’s accountant’s report, as it relied on outdated FSCO cases and did not follow the recent decision in Surani v. Perth. Adjudicator Johal held that the post-accident expenses had to be apportioned in accordance with the claimant’s ownership of the company. The disputed treatment plan was awarded as physiotherapy provided ongoing pain relief. A special award was not granted. Adjudicator Johal held that it was reasonable for the insurer to request ongoing business records in accordance with its obligation to continuously adjust the claim.
Menu