Nick Iannazzo

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

The Tribunal found the applicant should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to an accident-related psychological impairment (anxiety).

The applicant was awarded one treatment plan for physiotherapy because the insurer failed to provide sufficient medical reasons for its denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, claims for non-earner benefits, an occupational therapy assessment, and assistive devices were dismissed.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting significant pre-existing limitations, and the occupational therapy expense was incurred before the treatment plan was submitted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding that her brain contusion fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by interpreting 'contusion' in the definition of 'minor injury' to include brain contusions, asserting this was incompatible with the catastrophic impairment definition.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that the legislature did not exclude intracranial contusions from the minor injury definition, and a brain contusion remains a minor injury unless it results in a non-minor impairment.

The Tribunal also found no error of fact in its weighing of the medical evidence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's cerebral contusion fell within the definition of a minor injury and rejected the assertion that she suffered a traumatic brain injury or concussion.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of chronic pain causing functional impairment, noting the applicant returned to work within two months and failed to meet the criteria under the AMA Guides.

Finally, the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that her pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

The application for treatment plans outside the MIG, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including multiple treatment plans for physiotherapy, a TENS unit, a chronic pain program, and various assessments.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the physical injuries were minor and the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal found that five of the physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, and that one of the respondent's denial notices failed to comply with the medical reasons requirement under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the remaining treatment plans, finding insufficient evidence to support them.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, finding no unreasonable withholding or delay by the respondent.

The applicant was injured in a bus accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied several treatment plans, including a catastrophic impairment assessment, assistive devices, and various therapies.

The Tribunal found that the applicant proved the OT CAT assessment and related forms were reasonable and necessary, noting the respondent's own assessor had recommended them.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the other treatment plans due to a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a special award of $440 under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed the OT CAT assessment for over four years despite its own assessor's recommendation.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a psychological impairment that removed her from the MIG, relying on the credible evidence of her treating family physician and a psychological assessment over the respondent's insurer's examination.

The Tribunal awarded the cost of a psychological assessment and partially awarded the cost of psychotherapy treatment, deducting duplicative administrative costs.

Claims for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 were dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.