Monica Ciriello

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services.

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 with functional impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that her soft tissue injuries caused functional impairment or chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans and interest were not payable, and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied 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 physical injuries, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

The diagnostic imaging was unremarkable, there was no evidence of psychological impairment, and the applicant's functionality was inconsistent with a chronic pain diagnosis.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans, interest, and award were denied.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing 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, psychological impairment, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to demonstrate that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans, which exceeded the MIG limit, were not payable, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for $3,007.12, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant only sustained soft tissue injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairments that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the treatment plan and interest were denied.

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 sought payment for two treatment plans for chiropractic services totaling over $7,000.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence or specify her injuries to warrant removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The insurer 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 failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered physical or psychological injuries warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's assessors, noting the lack of objective medical evidence supporting non-minor physical injuries and the absence of the applicant's psychological reports in the submissions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding her injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline limit.

She argued the Tribunal erred by failing to consider a psychological assessment report.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error in not explicitly referencing every piece of evidence.

The Tribunal noted that even if the report had been explicitly analyzed, it would not have changed the conclusion that the applicant's psychological issues were related to the COVID-19 pandemic and job loss, rather than the accident.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for resolution.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries, which were primarily soft tissue injuries, met the definition of a minor injury.

The applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating a pre-existing condition or other reason to warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans for psychological services, attendant care, and physiotherapy were not payable, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to physiotherapy, psychological treatment, and an attendant care assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery for her soft tissue injuries and that her psychological complaints were pre-existing and not accident-related.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying non-earner benefits, arguing the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by striking submissions exceeding the page limit and erred in law by finding an OCF-3 insufficient to establish entitlement.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness as parties must adhere to Tribunal rules, and no error of law, as the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to prove entitlement to the benefits.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans for a psychological assessment and psychological therapy, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the physical injuries were minor, the uncontradicted psychological assessment evidence demonstrated the applicant suffered from an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the disputed treatment plans with interest, but declined to order a special award, finding the insurer's conduct was not egregious.

The applicant sought $1,733.72 for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a pre-existing back condition with similar physical limitations prior to the accident.

Relying on the insurer's examination, the Tribunal concluded the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary, as it would only provide temporary relief without substantial functional restoration.

The application was dismissed.

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 failed to provide written submissions or comply with Tribunal deadlines.

Relying on the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments, the Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the MIG.

The application for treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

Due to the applicant's unreasonable behaviour and bad faith in the proceeding, the Tribunal ordered costs of $1,000 against the applicant.

The applicant sought $1,678.10 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal excluded a portion of the applicant's submissions for exceeding the mandated page limit.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving the treatment was reasonable and necessary, as no expert evidence or detailed analysis was provided.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's physiatrist assessment that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The application was 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's chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a psychological assessment and occupational therapy treatment, plus interest on overdue payments.

The applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, as there was no evidence the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

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 respondent failed to file written submissions by the extended deadline, and its late reply submissions were excluded.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG, relying on medical reports diagnosing chronic pain syndrome and ongoing physical impairments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed physiotherapy services and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, along with interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan, arguing the applicant's shoulder impairment was related to a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary, concluding the accident exacerbated the pre-existing condition based on extensive medical evidence.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for an award, finding the respondent did not act unreasonably in its denial, but awarded interest on the overdue benefits.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, claiming physical, psychological, and chronic pain impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

The medical records were sparse, there was no formal psychological diagnosis, and the evidence did not support a finding of chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were limited to soft tissue sprains and strains, and there was insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain to warrant removal from the MIG.

The applicant also failed to prove entitlement to attendant care benefits, as no evidence of incurred expenses or economic loss was provided.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including psychological services, a driving evaluation, and physiotherapy.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The psychological services were not supported as the applicant did not recall previous sessions being helpful.

The driving evaluation was unnecessary as the applicant did not drive.

The physiotherapy was related to a significant pre-existing condition rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.