Dr. A. Kopyto

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

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

The applicant argued he sustained psychological impairments that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence uncompelling, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations which concluded the applicant suffered no significant physical or psychological impairments as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal held the applicant sustained a predominantly minor injury and was subject to the $3,500 funding limit.

As the disputed plans exceeded this limit, the claims were dismissed.

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 sought a rehabilitation benefit of $7,545.00 for personal training and a gym membership following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

Medical evidence indicated the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and did not specifically endorse the requested exercise program.

The claim was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit, costs of examinations, and medical benefits for physiotherapy.

The respondent insurer denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had returned to work as a truck driver shortly after the accident, as evidenced by his own testimony, his son's testimony, tax returns, and surveillance footage.

Medical evidence from insurer examinations also supported that he did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant did not meet the test.

The claims for medical benefits and assessments were also dismissed as they were not reasonable and necessary, and the applicant had failed to attend scheduled insurer examinations.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for five medical assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the psychological, orthopaedic, and physiatry assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the chronic pain assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary to explore treatment options, and the functional impairment assessment, as the insurer failed to provide a proper medical reason for denial within the required timeframe.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments but denied a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664.