Robert Watt

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $3,090.09 for chiropractic services following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plan based on an insurer's examination which concluded the applicant had reached maximum therapeutic benefit and could manage with home exercises.

The adjudicator found the treatment was not reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's own admissions about performing home exercises and returning to playing basketball.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits for physiotherapy following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal accepted the independent medical examination evidence that the applicant suffered only soft tissue injuries and had reached maximum medical recovery, noting her significant pre-accident medical history and lack of evidence meeting the criteria for chronic pain.

The claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit and medical benefits for physiotherapy, following a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, relying on the applicant's own statements to independent medical examiners regarding his post-accident activities.

The adjudicator also found no medical evidence of an ongoing physical impairment necessitating the claimed physiotherapy.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing that the applicant's needs stemmed from extensive pre-existing medical conditions, including Parkinson's disease and dementia, rather than the soft tissue injuries sustained in the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove the requested benefits and assessments were reasonable and necessary or causally related to the accident.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that awarded a specific amount for income replacement benefits but denied two claimed medical benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to consider her arguments and made errors of law and fact regarding passive income deductions and the necessity of psychological assessments.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness and concluding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue positions that had already been considered and rejected.

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

She claimed entitlement to ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a $23,581.00 medical benefit for assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were confined to the MIG, noting that her family doctor's records, surveillance evidence, and insurer's examinations contradicted her claims of chronic pain and functional limitation.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, and denied the medical benefit as the proposed assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying entitlement to income replacement benefits and medical benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law or fact regarding the disclosure of productions, the date of the applicant's baby's birth, and the timelines of visits to her family doctor.

The adjudicator found that the alleged errors were either not part of the decision's analysis or were not significant enough to affect the outcome.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits following a minor motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in employment.

The Tribunal relied on surveillance evidence showing the applicant socializing, driving, and taking vacations, which contradicted his claims of severe impairment.

The Tribunal also found the claimed medical benefits were not reasonable and necessary, as previous treatments had not improved his condition and independent medical examinations found him capable of working.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic treatment 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 sustained predominantly minor injuries, as there was insufficient evidence to prove that her chronic pain was not merely a sequelae of soft tissue injuries or that a pre-existing condition prevented her recovery.

The Tribunal also found the requested medical benefits were not reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant had returned to work and an independent medical examination concluded she had achieved maximum medical recovery.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, as there was insufficient evidence to establish that his chronic pain was more than a sequelae of his soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits due to lack of evidence, and denied the claimed medical and rehabilitation benefits for chiropractic treatment, an orthopaedic assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic care and a physiatry assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a possible coccyx fracture and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a fracture and noted that the applicant's medical evidence failed to explain how her pain impaired her functioning.

Concluding that the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits had been exhausted, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The self-represented applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to submit any medical evidence to support his claims.

The adjudicator relied on the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment and had no physical or psychological barriers to returning to work.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

A prior Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) decision found that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), which the applicant did not appeal.

The applicant brought a new application before the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that fresh medical evidence warranted a new determination.

The Tribunal found that the new evidence did not conclusively impeach the original results or show a material change in circumstances.

Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the Tribunal held that the applicant was barred from re-litigating the MIG issue.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a minor motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical benefits for physiotherapy, psychological, and chronic pain assessments.

The adjudicator dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, preferring the respondent's insurer's examination reports over the applicant's expert, who relied heavily on self-reporting and failed to review prior assessments.

The requested medical benefits were deemed not reasonable and necessary, as the evidence indicated the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines and she demonstrated the ability to perform her pre-accident duties and activities of daily living.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his OCF-10 election valid and denied his claim for a non-earner benefit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to consider his submissions, erred in its limitation period findings, and violated procedural fairness regarding adjuster log notes.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact, and noted the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy treatment and a functional abilities evaluation following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery, as her self-reported pain had not improved with previous treatments.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant had returned to her pre-accident employment and was functional, rendering the functional abilities evaluation unnecessary.

The claims for medical benefits, cost of examination, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that their OCF-10 election was valid and final, and that they were not entitled to a non-earner benefit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact and violated procedural fairness.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal properly considered the evidence regarding the election, the limitation period, and the applicant's inability to carry on a normal life.

The adjudicator also found no procedural fairness violation, as the applicant was given an opportunity to cross-examine the adjuster on clarified log notes but chose not to do so.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the deceased's death was not caused by a motor vehicle accident.

The applicants argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the mental stress caused by the accident and exaggerated the deceased's pre-existing health conditions.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and properly relied on medical and coroner reports indicating that the death resulted from pre-existing medical issues and bleeding from a fall, rather than stress from the accident.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically disputing the hourly rate payable for psychological treatment provided by a psychotherapist under the supervision of a psychologist.

The insurer had partially approved the treatment at the lower rate for unregulated providers.

The Tribunal found that because psychotherapists and psychologists provide the same cognitive behaviour therapy services, the psychotherapist should be paid at the higher rate of $149.61 per hour.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for an additional three hours for a psychological assessment due to lack of evidence, awarded interest on the outstanding benefits, and declined to order an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant, a self-employed real estate agent, sought dispute resolution for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal determined the applicant's weekly income replacement benefit (IRB) must account for passive income earned from real estate deals closing during the disputed periods, awarding $2,685.71.

The Tribunal denied the claims for a $2,900 psychological assessment and $1,320.77 for psychological treatment, finding them not reasonable and necessary as previous approved treatments were not utilized and the treatment plan included impermissible administrative costs.

Interest was awarded on the overdue IRB, but a claim for an award under Regulation 664 was dismissed.