Ian Maedel

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment as a shipping company president.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's medical evidence unpersuasive as it relied heavily on self-reporting, which was undermined by credibility issues and psychological testing suggesting he was feigning symptoms.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant suffered only soft-tissue injuries and no substantial inability to work.

Claims for post-104 IRBs, interest, and the respondent's request for costs were also dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the test for a non-earner benefit, as she did not provide compelling evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for attendant care benefits because the applicant failed to prove that any such expenses were incurred.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

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

The respondent determined the injuries were minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he suffered from a concussion, chronic pain, and a psychological impairment, which fall outside the MIG.

The Tribunal excluded a late-filed psychological assessment report due to prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims of concussion, chronic pain, or psychological impairment.

Consequently, the injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the claims for treatment plans and assessments beyond the MIG limit, as well as interest, were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant failed to provide any written submissions or evidence by the deadlines imposed by the Tribunal, despite multiple reminders.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to establish entitlement to the claimed benefits and dismissed the application.

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 applicant argued that a pre-existing back condition and chronic pain removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that his pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery or that he suffered from accident-related chronic pain.

The Tribunal placed significant weight on the respondent's expert reports.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor.

One treatment plan was partially approved to exhaust the remaining $3,500 MIG limit, while the rest were denied.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought $2,254.07 for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident, along with an award for unreasonable delay and interest.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting significant gaps in treatment, pre-existing degenerative conditions, and inconsistencies between reported impairments and observed functional capacities.

The Tribunal relied on the insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and funding for medical assessments.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to provide any written submissions or evidence by the deadlines imposed by the Tribunal, despite multiple reminders.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to establish entitlement to the claimed benefits or that his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision, arguing the Tribunal erred in fact and law and exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating the applicant's entitlement to and quantum of income replacement benefits (IRB) at and beyond age 65.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that IRB entitlement was never in dispute and that the insurer had not yet made a determination on post-65 benefits.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration, varying the previous decision to remove references to entitlement and post-65 IRB, while maintaining the applicant's ongoing IRB entitlement subject to the Insurance Act.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, having previously been found to suffer from chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether several treatment plans for physiotherapy, physical rehabilitation, psychological services, and assistive devices were reasonable and necessary under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that further facility-based treatment, including physiotherapy, physical rehabilitation, acupuncture, and a back support, were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's chronic pain and functionality.

The Tribunal also approved the treatment plan for psychological services, finding a causal link between the applicant's chronic pain and psychological symptoms.

Claims for an orthopaedic mattress, an elbow brace, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline, as the applicant failed to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit, finding the applicant's accounting report unreliable and contradicted by his own reports of returning to work post-accident.

All claims, including those for additional chiropractic treatment and interest, were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding insufficient evidence of the applicant's pre-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she failed to comply with requests for medical records under s. 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not fail to comply with s. 33 requests, as she had provided all available records from her family doctor.

The Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries were not predominantly minor, accepting an uncontradicted psychological assessment diagnosing her with major depressive disorder and specific phobia.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit due to a lack of evidence regarding her pre-accident activities.

A treatment plan for chiropractic care was also denied for lack of supporting medical evidence, while a psychological assessment was approved as reasonable and necessary.

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

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

The applicant argued she had a pre-existing back condition, a psychological impairment, and chronic pain that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition that prevented maximal recovery, and preferred the respondent's psychological assessments showing symptom amplification over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and no interest was owed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical benefits, including a psychological assessment, functional abilities evaluation, vocational assessment, and labour market survey, following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the assessments were reasonable and necessary pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to provide specific submissions for the assessments and that the respondent's evidence, including comprehensive reports, demonstrated the assessments were either duplicative or unnecessary.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award, interest, and costs were denied.

The applicant, who has a pre-existing diagnosis of autism, sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

She claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various medical benefits including occupational therapy, physical therapy, and a chronic pain assessment, as well as an award and interest.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as there was insufficient evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which indicated no objective ongoing accident-related impairments and found the disputed treatment plans were either duplicative or not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that his incident with a transit bus did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by failing to accept his uncontroverted self-reports and by misapplying the Greenhalgh test.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness and no error in its conclusion that the applicant failed to provide objective evidence establishing his injuries were directly caused by the operation of the bus.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued he sustained a psychological impairment and had pre-existing conditions that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unreliable and preferred the respondent's psychological assessments, which concluded there was no clinically significant accident-related psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition that prevented maximal recovery.

As the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought a rehabilitation benefit of $6,482.72 for an adjustable bed and mattress following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit, relying on a physiatrist's paper review which concluded the bed was not reasonable and necessary from a musculoskeletal perspective.

The Tribunal found the respondent's medical evidence unpersuasive and preferred the comprehensive reports of the applicant's occupational therapist and psychologist, which established that the applicant's chronic pain resulted in long-term sleep maintenance issues.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the cost of the bed and mattress, plus interest.

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 the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, specifically an exacerbation of pre-existing depression and anxiety, which removed her from the MIG.

However, of the numerous treatment and assessment plans claimed, the Tribunal found only one psychological assessment to be reasonable and necessary, as the applicant failed to provide submissions or evidence supporting the other claims.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically requesting funding for a functional abilities evaluation (FAE).

The applicant also attempted to add a claim for psychotherapy treatment late in the proceedings, which the Tribunal denied due to procedural unfairness.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the FAE was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's medical reports, which relied heavily on self-reporting, and preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments, which found no functional impairment and noted the applicant's self-limiting behavior during testing.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.