Julian DiBattista

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 applicant claimed a psychological impairment (PTSD) warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not support a psychological diagnosis, noting the family physician's records contradicted the PTSD claim.

As the applicant's injuries were minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for physiotherapy, medical services, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued a pre-existing knee injury warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant proved a pre-existing knee condition, they failed to provide compelling medical evidence demonstrating that the condition precluded maximal medical recovery within the confines of the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the proposed chiropractic treatment as it was not supported by the medical records.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to a vision therapy assessment and vision therapy sessions, finding them reasonable and necessary to treat the applicant's post-trauma vision syndrome symptoms.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and the respondent's request for costs were both dismissed.

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 applicant claimed a psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG, relying on a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found the psychological assessment was not corroborated by the contemporaneous clinical notes of the applicant's family physician.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not prove an accident-related psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that his physical injuries, alleged pre-existing conditions, or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for additional physiotherapy and psychological assessments were dismissed, along with claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought payment for three physiotherapy treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on section 44 assessments indicating no further physical rehabilitation was necessary.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence unpersuasive, as the reports were either based on phone consultations, lacked physical examinations, or contradicted hospital records.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's assessments and dismissed the application, finding the treatment plans were not reasonable or necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to drive and attend university.

However, because the insurer was two days late in denying the non-earner benefit, the applicant was awarded $422.86 for the period prior to the denial.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans, finding insufficient medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

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 applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence, such as clinical notes and records, to prove their injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were already exhausted, the claims for disputed treatment plans, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to a functional abilities evaluation and additional funds for psychological treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the functional abilities evaluation was not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant's own medical reports did not recommend it.

The Tribunal also denied the additional funds for psychological treatment, finding that the disputed amounts were administrative surcharges not payable under the Professional Services Guideline and that the social work services provided were exempt from HST.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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 failed to prove her physical injuries or alleged psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG.

As the disputed treatment plans proposed treatment beyond the $3,500 MIG limit, the applicant was not entitled to them.

The application was 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 applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, concluding there was no clinically significant psychological impairment.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the application for further benefits and a section 10 award was dismissed.

The applicant, a personal support worker struck by a motor vehicle as a pedestrian, sought statutory accident benefits including an income replacement benefit (IRB), a chronic pain assessment, and psychological treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from receiving an IRB for the initial period because she failed to submit a disability certificate until September 2019.

For the subsequent periods, she failed to prove a substantial or complete inability to work, as her family physician's notes indicated she was able to work after November 2018 and she provided no functional abilities evaluation.

The Tribunal also denied the chronic pain assessment and the disputed portion of the psychological treatment plan, finding them not reasonable or necessary based on the medical evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the denial of four treatment plans for physical rehabilitation and two assessment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the proposed treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident, noting a lack of medical evidence linking the applicant's chronic back pain to the accident.

The application was dismissed, and no benefits, interest, or awards were payable.

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 applicant argued they should be removed from the MIG due to a fibromyalgia diagnosis and chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that their injuries fell outside the MIG or that a pre-existing condition prevented recovery within the MIG.

As the disputed treatment plans proposed treatment outside the MIG framework, they were denied.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were minor and unrelated to the accident, preferring the respondent's medical evidence.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's psychological claims, noting inconsistencies, lack of a translator during assessment, and absence of psychological issues in clinical notes.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed minor and the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, all disputed treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were denied.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute over statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had partially denied two treatment plans for psychological services, disputing the length of therapy sessions (1.5 hours vs. 1 hour) and the hourly rate of a psychotherapist ($149.61 vs. $100).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that 1.5-hour sessions were reasonable and necessary, as the expert reports did not specify session length.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the $100 hourly rate approved by the respondent for the psychotherapist was reasonable, distinguishing previous case law because the proposed treatment did not include Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing their injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof, as the medical evidence lacked objective corroboration and failed to establish a causal link between the accident and the alleged psychological symptoms.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 assessment, which found no objective evidence of impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological injuries and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries had resolved, noting his return to strenuous physical activity like boxing.

The Tribunal also rejected the psychological and chronic pain claims, giving little to no weight to the applicant's expert reports due to methodological flaws and inconsistencies with the clinical records.

As the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant was removed from the MIG due to documented pre-existing conditions, including a prior traumatic brain injury and cerebral palsy, which precluded recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal awarded $1,245.54 for physiotherapy services but denied a claim for psychological services, finding the psychological stress was related to the claims process rather than the accident.

A claim for a section 10 award for unreasonable delay was also denied because the applicant had delayed producing necessary medical records.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to several treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic services, as well as a chronic pain assessment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove their injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting inconsistencies between the applicant's chronic pain assessment, their own submissions, and their family physician's clinical notes.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.