Rachel Levitsky

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment, removing him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant's claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed due to a lack of compelling evidence explaining his inability to work.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for psychological services, a psychological assessment, and a neurological assessment, but denied plans for chiropractic services.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to a prior Tribunal decision, and was also outside the two-year limitation period.

Claims for housekeeping, caregiving, and case management benefits were dismissed because the applicant had not been deemed catastrophically impaired and had not purchased optional benefits.

The respondent's request for costs was denied, as the self-represented applicant's conduct was not found to be unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), rejecting claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment due to insufficient and contradictory medical evidence.

The claim for non-earner benefits was also dismissed as the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for treatment plans for psychological and neurological assessments and counselling because the respondent's denial letters were boilerplate and failed to provide specific medical reasons as required by section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and biopsychosocial assessment treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits based on section 44 independent medical examinations.

The applicant argued the respondent's notices of examination were deficient under section 44(5) of the Schedule, rendering the resulting reports void ab initio and triggering mandatory payment under section 38(11).

The Tribunal found that while the notices for the physical treatments lacked sufficient reasons, the applicant's attendance at the assessments did not waive her rights, but the resulting reports were not void ab initio.

Because the ultimate denial letters complied with section 38(8) and the applicant provided no evidence that the treatments were reasonable and necessary, the claims were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic services, medical services, and multiple assessments (CAT, SPECT, QEEG).

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to most of the treatment plans, as some were submitted beyond the 260-week post-accident limit and others were duplicative or lacked sufficient evidence of reasonableness and necessity.

However, the Tribunal allowed $2,000 for a neurological assessment, $200 for the completion of an OCF-19, and $176 for transportation expenses, noting objective evidence of potential brain dysfunction.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue benefits but denied an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being assaulted in his vehicle following a road rage incident.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not, as the assault was an intervening event that broke the chain of causation and was the dominant feature of the incident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to chronic pain and psychological impairments, entitling her to the non-earner benefit for the maximum 104-week period.

The Tribunal also partially approved several treatment plans for physical rehabilitation, acupuncture, and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

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

The applicant insurer sought repayment of statutory accident benefits paid to the respondent, alleging the motor vehicle collision was a staged accident.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

Relying on event data recorder evidence from a forensic engineer, the Tribunal found that the respondent was likely not a passenger in the vehicle and that the collision did not occur as reported.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent was not involved in an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule and had wilfully misrepresented material facts.

The insurer was entitled to terminate benefits and the respondent was ordered to repay $3,011.06 plus interest.

The applicant sought entitlement to multiple treatment plans for physical therapy, psychological services, and various multidisciplinary assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a chronic pain assessment and the HST portion of a partially approved psychological assessment, but denied the remaining treatment plans due to insufficient medical evidence.

The Tribunal also held the applicant was statute-barred from disputing a neuropsychological assessment because she failed to attend a scheduled insurer's examination without reasonable explanation.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed as the insurer's denials were not unreasonable.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he did not qualify for an income replacement benefit.

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

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an Uber driver, noting inconsistent effort during functional testing.

All claims, including a treatment plan for chiropractic services, interest, and an award, were dismissed.

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 provide substantive evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for a psychological assessment and a psychological pre-screening because the insurer failed to provide compliant denial notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule before the expenses were incurred.

The remaining treatment plans were denied as they were not incurred prior to the insurer issuing compliant denial notices.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, assistive devices, and several assessments.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant demonstrated a need for attendant care benefits during the disputed period, he failed to prove the expenses were incurred, rendering them not payable.

The Tribunal granted the treatment plans for a nutritional assessment and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's reported symptoms and medical records.

The remaining claims were dismissed for lack of evidence or because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over items not proven to have been submitted to or denied by the insurer.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and delayed submitting her application for statutory accident benefits (OCF-1) for approximately six months.

The respondent insurer sought to bar her application under s. 55(1)(1) of the Schedule for failing to provide notice within seven days as required by s. 32(1).

The Tribunal found that while the applicant missed the deadline, she provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, specifically her credible belief that making a claim would negatively affect her husband's insurance rates.

The Tribunal concluded the prejudice to the applicant of being barred from benefits outweighed the prejudice to the insurer, allowing the application to proceed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, as she failed to provide sufficient evidence for removal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for income replacement benefits and various treatment plans, finding that the respondent's denial notices complied with the requirements of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and a special award.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims for attendant care benefits because the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred by his son under section 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The claims for chiropractic and physiotherapy treatments were also dismissed for lack of evidence demonstrating their effectiveness and reasonableness.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for a psychological assessment, finding it reasonable given the applicant's documented depressive symptoms.

The Tribunal also ordered a special award of $440 under Regulation 664, finding the respondent unreasonably maintained its denial of the psychological assessment even after its own assessor diagnosed the applicant with similar psychological conditions.

The applicant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, sought payment for several treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal denied the treatment plans for a sleep system and a scuba diving course, finding they were not reasonable and necessary as the applicant had a similar sleep system prior to the accident and was already engaging in other activities that supplanted the need for the scuba course.

However, the Tribunal approved the treatment plan for a rehabilitation assistant to help the applicant move homes, noting his physical and psychological impairments hindered his ability to do so independently.

The Tribunal also approved treatment plans for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy services, finding they provided necessary pain relief, but denied a duplicate chiropractic plan.

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

She claimed $112.98 for a camera purchased for a virtual assessment and $353.60 for travel costs to her mother's home for the holidays.

The Tribunal found that the camera was a personal expense and not payable under the Schedule.

The Tribunal also found that the travel costs were not related to treatment, counselling, training, assessments, or examinations, and were therefore not reasonable and necessary transportation expenses.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a concussion, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for early physiotherapy and a neurological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, later physiotherapy plans, an attendant care assessment, and a psychological assessment were denied for lack of supporting evidence.

Interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from a psychological impairment, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for several treatment plans, including one where the respondent failed to provide a compliant denial notice under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The respondent denied the benefits and sought repayment of $4,410.00 in income replacement benefits, alleging wilful misrepresentation regarding the applicant's return to work.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a chronic pain condition with functional limitations, keeping him within the MIG and dismissing the claims for treatment plans.

However, the Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's claim for repayment, finding no wilful misrepresentation or fraud, as the applicant had disclosed his return to work to the respondent's assessors.