Gary Marshall

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a psychological assessment, assistive devices, and occupational therapy services.

The Tribunal found the psychological assessment and assistive devices were not reasonable and necessary, relying on independent examinations and a lack of contemporaneous evidence supporting the claims.

However, the Tribunal approved the occupational therapy services, finding them supported by functional capacity assessments and a physiatrist's diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue occupational therapy benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing shoulder condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient compelling medical evidence to support removal on any of these grounds, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments which concluded the injuries were minor.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including osteopathic, chiropractic, and occupational therapy services.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to osteopathic services at a rate of $80.00 per hour, as osteopaths are not relegated to the lowest rate under the Professional Services Guideline.

However, the claims for chiropractic services and an occupational therapy assessment were dismissed, as the insurer's section 44 assessments demonstrated the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and did not suffer from functional impairments warranting further treatment.

The claim for a section 10 award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue osteopathic benefits.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after her daughter drove the vehicle with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant, a single mother of four living in a rural area without public transit, had no reasonable alternative to the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded that the loss of the vehicle caused immediate, significant, and lasting financial, employment, and educational losses.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant demonstrated she suffers from a chronic pain condition with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a psychological assessment and a chiropractic treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue payments.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a functional impairment related to chronic pain and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's pre-screening report.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor, and since the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from accident-related psychological impairments, including PTSD and depression, which removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the disputed physiotherapy services and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue payments.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 and for costs, finding the insurer's conduct did not meet the high threshold of bad faith or unreasonableness.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological services and a doctor's visit following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary and relying on an independent psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's treating practitioners provided sufficient corroborating medical evidence of ongoing psychological impairments, including depression and PTSD, to establish that the treatment plan and doctor's visit were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the disputed benefits with interest, but declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, finding the insurer's conduct did not rise to the level of unreasonableness required.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, massage therapy, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment following a November 2020 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to provide corroborating medical evidence to establish that the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's medical examiners, who found no objective evidence of ongoing physical or psychological impairment related to the accident.

Claims for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for two treatment plans for chiropractic services following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant only experienced temporary pain relief and that the respondent's orthopedic assessment found no ongoing accident-related physical impairment.

The application was dismissed and no interest was payable.