Dagmara Szczudlo

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic services, occupational therapy, and assistive devices.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examinations and surveillance evidence, which demonstrated that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and was functioning independently in her activities of daily living, over the applicant's evidence.

The applicant sought $39,377.30 in statutory accident benefits for fertility treatments, arguing that adhesions from surgeries following a 2002 motor vehicle accident caused her difficulty conceiving.

The respondent denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the need for fertility treatments was causally related to the accident.

The Tribunal declined to qualify the applicant's family physician as an expert and noted the absence of expert medical evidence linking the adhesions to the fertility issues.

The claims for the medical expenses, an award under Regulation 664, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her physical and psychological injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, including a right shin contusion, fell within the minor injury definition, and her pre-existing osteoarthritis did not preclude recovery.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's psychological assessment as unpersuasive, preferring the insurer's examination and family doctor records which showed no psychological complaints.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, all disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award were denied.

The applicant sought entitlement to two physiotherapy treatment plans, a special award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the first treatment plan for $5,510.41 was not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant experienced only temporary pain relief and failed to demonstrate functional improvement.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the second treatment plan for $7,395.06 because the respondent's denial notice failed to provide a medical reason, violating section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the respondent's conduct was not excessive or imprudent.

Interest was awarded on the payable treatment plan.