Matthew Frontini

The applicant sought payment for four physiotherapy treatment plans, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent conceded the applicant was not subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

However, the applicant failed to provide specific submissions regarding the goals, reasonableness, or necessity of the disputed treatment plans.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant did not meet his burden of proof.

The application for benefits, interest, and an award was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a psychological injury or chronic pain with functional impairment caused by the accident.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's argument that the respondent's denial notices were deficient under section 38 of the Schedule, noting that the reasons provided did not need to be legally correct to be valid.

Consequently, the applicant's claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest were 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 Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairments, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary based on medical evidence and contemporaneous reporting.

A treatment plan for an orthopaedic assessment was denied as the applicant failed to establish it was warranted.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit, several physiotherapy treatment plans, out-of-pocket expenses, an award, and costs following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal granted one physiotherapy treatment plan due to the insurer's defective denial notice under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, and granted another on the basis that it was reasonable and necessary to treat ongoing neck pain.

Claims for out-of-pocket expenses were dismissed because no treatment plans had been submitted, barring recovery under s. 38(2).

Claims for an award and costs were also dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including psychiatric and chronic pain assessments, lacked corroboration from her family doctor's records and was internally inconsistent.

Preferring the respondent's psychological and physiatry assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a psychological injury or chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, including payment for two chiropractic treatment plans and the balance of her $50,000 medical and rehabilitation policy limits.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the claims for the treatment plans were statute-barred as the applicant failed to dispute the denials within the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denials were clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period, and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for the balance of the policy limits, finding no statutory authority to order such a payment without reference to a specific incurred expense.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The applicant claimed she suffered from psychological injuries and chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a psychological injury or chronic pain with functional impairment caused by the accident.

The medical evidence, including a psychological screening report and imaging, was insufficient to support her claims.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, interest, or an award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a neurological assessment.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the IRB for the claimed period because the disability certificate (OCF-3) was not submitted until after the period had ended, contrary to s. 36(3) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also denied the neurological assessment, finding insufficient evidence to warrant a neurological investigation, as the family doctor's notes primarily indicated muscular complaints.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish a psychological injury or chronic pain with functional impairment, preferring the respondent's assessments.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's arguments that the respondent's denial notices contravened section 38 of the Schedule.

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 her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit (NEB) due to an allegedly defective denial.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG for either physical or psychological injuries.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the insurer's denial of the NEB complied with s. 36(4) of the Schedule, as it provided a valid reason—that the applicant qualified for an income replacement benefit instead.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and a pre-existing back condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain syndrome under the AMA Guides, noting insufficient evidence of medication abuse, excessive dependence on family, or failure to restore pre-injury function.

The Tribunal also found no compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing low back pain precluded recovery within the MIG.

As the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for additional treatment plans, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision denying certain treatment plans and assessments, relying on over 180 pages of new medical evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the new evidence could not have been obtained previously.

The Tribunal noted that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to correct shortcomings in submissions or evidence after a decision has been rendered.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as her extensive pre-accident medical records indicated she experienced the same level of chronic pain and functional limitation before and after the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans, finding a lack of objective medical evidence that they were reasonable and necessary to treat accident-related impairments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits (NEBs) and various treatment plans for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting that the applicant's evidence only showed some activities were more difficult, not that he was prevented from engaging in them.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or submissions to establish that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for incurred physiotherapy expenses was dismissed as the expenses were incurred prior to the submission of a treatment plan.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of treatment plans for physiotherapy, assistive devices, an attendant care assessment, and a driver evaluation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence to establish that the physiotherapy, assistive devices, and attendant care assessment were reasonable and necessary, noting the respondent's unchallenged orthopaedic assessment.

However, the Tribunal granted the treatment plan for a driver evaluation, as it was specifically recommended by the applicant's psychological assessors and uncontradicted by the respondent.

The applicant was also awarded interest on the overdue payment.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant's former representative withdrew prior to the hearing, and the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant received proper notice but failed to meet their evidentiary burden.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit and medical benefits outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical evidence demonstrated she could independently perform most activities of daily living and had returned to part-time work.

Furthermore, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that a pre-existing lumbosacral spine pathology precluded her maximal recovery within the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were denied as the MIG funding limit was exhausted.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for statutory accident benefits.

The original decision found that the applicant failed to establish his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and therefore did not consider the reasonableness and necessity of the disputed treatment plans.

On reconsideration, the applicant argued this failure constituted an error of law or fact.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that because the applicant did not meet his initial burden to remove himself from the MIG, there was no available funding and thus no need to assess the treatment plans.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits beyond the $3,500 limit of the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries were minor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence demonstrating that her injuries fell outside the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant was subject to the MIG funding limit, and her claims for additional medical benefits, interest, and an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 were dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her application as abandoned after she failed to attend two consecutive case conferences.

She argued that she was in China and experienced technical difficulties calling into the second case conference.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the evidence of her whereabouts could have been provided previously and that the unsworn, untranslated screenshot of a call log did not constitute new evidence that would have affected the result.