Andrea Reid

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for massage therapy, assistive devices (specifically personal protective equipment), an attendant care assessment, and a psychological assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the expenses were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal held that personal protective equipment is an administrative cost not payable under the Schedule.

The claims for attendant care and psychological assessments were dismissed due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence and reliance on flawed or outdated reports.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, with no interest or award granted.

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

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant established she suffers from chronic pain with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the Tribunal approved disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic services, and a chronic pain assessment as reasonable and necessary.

However, the applicant's claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed, as she failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

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

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical and psychological injuries did not warrant removal from the MIG, her chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment did justify removal.

The Tribunal approved the treatment plans for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The claims for psychological and cognitive assessments were dismissed.

Interest was awarded on the approved, overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits and various medical and rehabilitation treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were related to a pre-existing condition and a subsequent fall from a ladder.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the requested benefits were reasonable and necessary as a result of the subject accident.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, and claims for interest and a special award were denied.

The applicant sought $2,200 for an in-home occupational therapy assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefit and scheduled an insurer's examination, which the applicant failed to attend without reasonable explanation.

The Tribunal found the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding under s. 55(1)(2) of the Schedule due to her non-attendance.

In the alternative, the Tribunal found the assessment was not reasonable or necessary, as it was a duplication of previously approved services and the applicant's ongoing physical complaints were not clearly linked to the accident.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer initially denied but later approved and paid for a psychological treatment plan and assessment, along with interest, after the LAT application was filed.

The applicant sought a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg 664 for the delay, as well as costs.

The Tribunal found the insurer unreasonably delayed payment for four months after receiving invoices for the approved plans, warranting a special award of $333.60 (10% of the treatment plan value).

The claims for costs and further interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence of a chronic pain diagnosis or functional impairment that would prevent recovery within the MIG.

Consequently, the proposed chiropractic treatment plans exceeding the MIG limit were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The medical evidence did not establish chronic pain syndrome or a psychological condition directly caused by the accident.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and no interest was payable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $2,404.11 for an occupational therapy treatment plan, which the respondent insurer partially denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the remaining unapproved portion of the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting she had not yet incurred the previously approved sessions and lacked corroborating medical evidence linking her cognitive symptoms to the accident.

The claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.