Dr. Andrew Gwardjan

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) and claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a chiropractic treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG, noting the absence of corroborating evidence for diagnoses of sciatica and bursitis.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plan was denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a barber.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical examination and relied on surveillance footage showing the applicant performing barbering tasks in his garage.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB), an award for unreasonable delay, and interest.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was employed as a machine operator at the time of the accident and that the accident caused pre-existing degenerative changes in his lumbar spine to become symptomatic.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist over the respondent's, noting it was based on more comprehensive medical records including an MRI.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and awarded IRBs at $384 per week for the first 104 weeks.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment after 104 weeks.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

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).

As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal found the applicant was not statute-barred from disputing a treatment plan, as the limitation period was extended by 183 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic under O. Reg. 73/20.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

Because the $3,500 MIG limit was already exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a special award under Regulation 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were based on subjective complaints and her evidence was unreliable.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and determined she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a gas bar attendant, entitling her to pre-104 week IRBs.

However, the Tribunal dismissed her claim for post-104 week IRBs, finding she failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, as she had successfully worked part-time jobs post-accident and failed to prove her subsequent surgeries were accident-related.

The claim for a Regulation 664 award was also dismissed, as the insurer's delay in obtaining addendum reports was not unreasonable given the applicant's delay in providing requested documents.

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

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

The applicant contended that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's psychiatric expert whose opinion aligned with the treating family physician's records.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The central issue was whether the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), which caps treatment at $3,500.

The applicant argued that psychological impairments, chronic pain, and pre-existing conditions removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence from appropriately qualified practitioners to substantiate these claims, preferring the respondent's psychiatric and physiatry evidence.

The Tribunal also excluded the applicant's late challenge to the respondent's expert reports due to non-compliance with the Tribunal's rules on notice.

The application was dismissed, and the claimed medical benefits and assessment costs were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for three treatment plans.

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

The arbitrator dismissed the claims on two grounds.

First, the treatment plans were not signed by the applicant or a regulated health professional, as strictly required by section 38(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Second, the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her injuries, including her ongoing chronic pain, fell outside the MIG.