Matthew Frontini

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish entitlement to the non-earner benefit, noting the insurer's denial letter complied with the notice requirements under s. 36(4) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the applicant did not provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain with functional impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

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 first excluded late-filed medical records due to the applicant's failure to comply with production deadlines without a valid excuse.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain syndrome or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were denied, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec and elected to receive benefits under Quebec's public plan (SAAQ).

She applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution after the respondent denied treatment plans for an orthopaedic assessment, a chronic pain program, and hospital services.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the orthopaedic assessment and chronic pain program were reasonable and necessary, as contemporaneous medical evidence from her family doctor indicated her physical injuries had resolved.

Furthermore, the adjudicator found that the hospital services expense was reasonably available from OHIP, and the applicant had failed to take reasonable steps to seek reimbursement within the statutory time period.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

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 provide sufficient evidence of her pre-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, thereby dismissing the claim for a non-earner benefit.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish that she suffered from chronic pain syndrome caused by the accident that would warrant removal from the MIG, particularly given her extensive pre-existing medical conditions.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were denied, along with claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for psychological services, a neurological assessment, and physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found the applicant partially entitled to the psychological services treatment plan for counselling sessions, but denied the in-car driving reintegration therapy, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment that the applicant did not suffer from a severe driving phobia.

The claims for a neurological assessment and physiotherapy were dismissed due to a lack of supporting medical evidence.

The applicant's request for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was denied, but interest was awarded on the overdue psychological counselling benefits.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for physiotherapy, assistive devices, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish the reasonableness and necessity of the physiotherapy and assistive devices plans due to a lack of supporting evidence and submissions.

However, the Tribunal approved the chronic pain assessment plan, finding sufficient evidence of consistent pain and functional limitations to warrant further investigation.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payment for the assessment.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological injuries, specifically Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Adjustment Disorder.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his psychological injuries were caused by the accident, noting contradictions in his self-reporting regarding pre-accident mental health symptomology.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The claims for disputed treatment plans, assessments, and interest were dismissed.

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).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered accident-related chronic pain with a functional impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the denial of four treatment plans, an award, and interest.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services, an attendant care assessment, a functional ability evaluation, and a home site assessment were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant relied on arguments regarding the respondent's denials rather than providing compelling medical evidence to support his claims.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), a non-earner benefit (NEB), and funding for physiotherapy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an NEB, finding insufficient evidence of the applicant's pre-accident activities and how her impairments prevented her from engaging in them.

Claims for treatment plans, an award, interest, and costs were consequently dismissed.

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

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

The applicant claimed she suffered from chronic pain and psychological injuries warranting removal from the MIG, relying on reports from a physician and a psychologist.

The Tribunal found that the expert reports were not corroborated by contemporaneous medical records, which indicated the applicant's injuries had largely resolved within five months of the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish her injuries fell outside the MIG, dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans, and denied interest.

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

The respondent denied funding for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to establish that his injuries fell outside the MIG definition.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a meniscal tear in his left knee as a result of the accident, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved four of the five disputed treatment plans for injections, chiropractic, and massage therapy, finding them reasonable and necessary for pain relief.

One chiropractic treatment plan was denied because the applicant failed to establish its reasonableness and necessity, relying solely on an argument that the respondent's denial letter was invalid.

The applicant was awarded interest on the approved plans but denied an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, including funding for physiatry, chronic pain, and neurological assessments, as well as assistive devices.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis of a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and the application of the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting the absence of contemporaneous medical records corroborating the applicant's self-reported chronic pain.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment, preferring the respondent's s. 44 assessment over the applicant's s. 25 assessment, which relied heavily on uncorroborated self-reporting.

Consequently, the applicant remained in the MIG, and most disputed treatment plans were not payable.

However, a psychological assessment plan was deemed payable under s. 38(11) of the Schedule because the respondent's explanation of benefits failed to provide proper medical or other reasons for denial.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, massage, and assistive devices following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting the treatment plans and found that the applicant relied on outdated records that did not endorse the specific goods or services claimed.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, claiming chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide medical evidence establishing chronic pain with functional impairment.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, and the claims for disputed treatment plans and interest 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).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and was therefore not entitled to a non-earner benefit.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit and funding for treatment plans.

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 provide compelling medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant was not entitled to an income replacement benefit because the disability certificate was submitted after the disputed period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding his injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, and denying two treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and breached procedural fairness regarding the insurer's notice obligations under s. 38 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration in part, finding it erred in law by concluding the insurer's denial of a psychological services treatment plan complied with s. 38(9), as the denial failed to state the insurer's belief that the MIG applied.

Consequently, the applicant was entitled to the psychological services under s. 38(11).

The reconsideration was dismissed regarding the chronic pain assessment, as a subsequent compliant denial cured any initial defect.