Dylan Crosby

The registrant, a podiatrist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to disclose a civil lawsuit against him on his annual College renewal forms.

He resigned from the College and undertook never to reapply or practise in any jurisdiction.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $13,500 in costs, finding the proposed penalty was not contrary to the public interest.

The Applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Respondent denied the benefits, citing the Applicant's failure to comply with requests for information under section 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant substantially complied with the requests and that the Respondent had agreed to pay the benefits subject to calculating quantum.

The Tribunal awarded IRBs at a rate of $30.29 per week for a limited period, based on self-employment income reported to the CRA, and denied further benefits as the Applicant had returned to work.

The Tribunal also ordered interest and a 20% award under section 10 of Regulation 664 due to the Respondent's unreasonable delay in calculating and paying the benefits.

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 sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under the ambulatory mobility criterion following a motor vehicle accident.

While the Tribunal accepted that the accident caused a severe and permanent alteration to the structure and function of her right leg, it rejected the SCIM scoring methodologies presented by both parties' experts.

The applicant's experts improperly scored her using a wheeled walker without a swing gait, and the respondent's expert improperly substituted his hand for a cane.

Without valid SCIM scoring evidence, the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

Claims for a walker and a CAT assessment were also dismissed as the applicant made no submissions to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that his injuries fell outside the MIG, as there was insufficient evidence of pre-existing conditions precluding recovery, psychological impairment, or chronic pain.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for Income Replacement Benefits (IRB), finding the applicant returned to work and failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments, including chronic pain, that warranted treatment beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft-tissue sprains and strains falling within the MIG.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's psychological evidence as it was based wholly on self-reporting without psychometric testing, and found insufficient evidence to establish chronic pain under the AMA Guides criteria.

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

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 his claim for income replacement benefits (IRBs) was procedurally barred.

The Tribunal found the Applicant was barred from pursuing IRBs because he failed to provide timely notice of his intention to claim the benefit after previously withdrawing it, violating section 32(1) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the Applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, finding insufficient evidence of an accident-related chronic pain condition or psychological injury.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied as they exceeded the MIG funding limit, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a mental and behavioural disorder (Criterion 8) following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant relied on the opinions of an ABI specialist and an orthopaedic surgeon, neither of whom performed formal catastrophic impairment testing.

The respondent presented surveillance evidence showing the applicant performing activities of daily living unassisted, contradicting her self-reports, and a psychiatric assessment concluding she suffered only moderate impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving a catastrophic impairment, noting inconsistencies in her reporting and the lack of qualified psychological or psychiatric assessments supporting her claim.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision barring him from proceeding with his application for statutory accident benefits due to his failure to attend insurer's examinations without a reasonable explanation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Schedule, statutory notice requirements, and the necessity of the examinations.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant error of law or fact, and noted the applicant was attempting to reargue his case.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he was removed from the MIG due to a neurological impairment (sciatica) and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a concussion, sciatica, or a psychological impairment caused by the accident, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury, and because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The insurer denied two treatment plans on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and required the applicant to attend insurer's examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing that s. 44 does not permit an examination to determine the applicability of the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the insurer is entitled to request an examination to determine if the MIG applies, and that the applicant's legal interpretation was incorrect.

Because the applicant failed to attend the examinations without a reasonable explanation, he was barred from proceeding with his application under s. 55 of the Schedule.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries were not predominantly minor or that she had a pre-existing condition preventing maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The application was dismissed.