Nikisha Evans

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant did not provide sufficient medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the $3,282.81 treatment plan because the respondent failed to comply with the notice requirements under ss. 38(8) and 38(9) of the Schedule, triggering the mandatory payment provision under s. 38(11).

The applicant's claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue payment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing her driver's licence was not suspended at the time.

The appellant had previously been convicted of impaired driving in Ontario but completed remedial requirements in Quebec, where she resided.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's Ontario driving privileges remained suspended because she had not notified the Ministry of Transportation of her completion of the Quebec program.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, noting that under section 36 of the Act, a person whose Ontario driving privileges are suspended cannot drive in Ontario using a licence from another jurisdiction.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident in August 2022, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit and two physiotherapy treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments stemmed from a prior 2019 accident and that he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence highly inconsistent regarding his pre- and post-accident functioning and employment status.

Relying on the consistent evidence of the respondent's assessors and the applicant's own treating records, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove his entitlement to the non-earner benefit or the treatment plans.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs due to late service of documents was also denied.

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 provide sufficient medical evidence of physical impairments warranting removal from the MIG, and gave no weight to a psychological report as psychological issues were not in dispute.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for physiotherapy treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for a physiotherapy treatment plan in the amount of $1,249.24 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan based on an insurer's examination report.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary, placing significant weight on the clinical notes and records of the treating practitioners which showed the applicant was benefiting from the treatments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the treatment plan with interest, but declined to order an award for unreasonable delay.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant established he suffers from chronic pain with functional impairments, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,460.00 for the chronic pain assessment and interest on overdue benefits, but denied the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $2,456.20 for a chiropractic treatment plan under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the plan based on an insurer's examination report.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, placing significant weight on the clinical notes of the applicant's physiatrist and rehabilitation consultant, which confirmed the applicant derived benefit from the treatments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the treatment plan along with interest on overdue amounts.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution, seeking removal from the MIG and payment for two chiropractic treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic pain condition, supported by clinical notes from her family physician, caused functional impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal further held that the chiropractic treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, ordering the respondent to pay the claimed amounts plus applicable interest.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG, claiming accident-related chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a psychological impairment, noting that chiropractors lack the expertise to diagnose such conditions.

The Tribunal also preferred the insurer's examination report, which indicated the applicant had returned to his pre-accident work and daily routine, over the treating chiropractor's reports.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit.

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 argued he suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG, relying on reports from an orthopaedic surgeon and a psychologist.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not provide compelling medical evidence to support a diagnosis of chronic pain or psychological impairment, noting that the family physician's records indicated the accident-related issues had resolved.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the claims for additional treatment plans and interest were dismissed.