The claimant was involved in a accident on October 21, 2017, and was paid an IRB for one year. The insurer terminated the claimant’s IRB on the basis that they did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the tasks of their pre-accident employment. The claimant filed a LAT Application disputing IRBs up to the end of the 104-week period. The claimant was not employed at the time of the accident, but had worked for at least 26 of the previous 52 weeks as a security guard. One month prior to the accident, he resigned from his position as a security guard. Two days prior to the accident, he incorporated a technology and consulting business, which was a sedentary working position. The claimant argued that that he was also training for a physical evaluation to become a police officer at this time, which he was unable to complete due to his injuries, including an exacerbation of a pre-accident right knee injury. The insurer noted that, while the claimant could use his income from his security job position pre-accident, that he had resigned from this position more than a month prior to the accident and that he was working a sedentary position, which is what the pre-104 test should be based on. The insurer further noted that the claimant got a position with Amazon immediately following the period in dispute. Adjudicator Boyce ruled in the insurer’s favour, noting that a review of the records of the family physician showed no right knee complaints. Furthermore, while the claimant did submit several expert reports which diagnosed him with chronic pain, the reports did not state that he could not work, sit or stand for long periods of time, and many of these reports were authored outside of the IRB period in dispute.
Menu