Alla Kadysh

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant sought removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain but accepted the applicant's psychological impairment, relying on a psychological assessment diagnosing trauma and somatic symptom disorders.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the incurred psychological assessment and proposed psychological treatment, plus interest.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found her impairments subject to the Minor Injury Guideline and denied two treatment plans and a special award.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law or fact by failing to address the inadequacy of the medical and other reasons in the respondent's denial notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error regarding the first notice, and concluding that while an error was made in failing to specifically address the sufficiency of the second notice, the notice was ultimately compliant and the error would not have changed the result.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as there was insufficient medical evidence of chronic pain or functional impairment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $120.00 for one treatment plan because its denial letter was deficient and failed to meet the requirements of s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The remaining claims for treatment plans, a s. 10 award, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, rejecting his chiropractor's diagnoses of chronic pain and concussion as outside the practitioner's expertise.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's physiatry assessment that the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters complied with the notice requirements under the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for medical cannabis, occupational therapy, psychotherapy at a higher rate, and vitamins following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the medical cannabis and vitamins were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found that the psychotherapy rate of $149.61 was not justified for a psychotherapist, and upheld the respondent's approved rate of $91.43.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for occupational therapy services, finding that the respondent's psychological assessment failed to grasp the functional purpose of the occupational therapy intervention.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the occupational therapy treatment with interest, but the claim for a special award was dismissed.