Dr. Andrew Shaul

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing he should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish functional impairment from chronic pain, noting that his own expert's examination produced normal results.

The Tribunal also rejected the claim of psychological impairment, finding the psychological diagnosis relied too heavily on self-reports and lacked corroboration from the applicant's family physician.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and several treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, relying on s. 44 assessments and the applicant's self-reports of resuming most pre-accident activities.

Claims for attendant care and treatment plans were denied for lack of evidence establishing they were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for an award and interest.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence of functional impairment arising from chronic pain or psychological injuries, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations over the applicant's medical reports.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, interest, or an award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a chronic pain treatment program, a neurological examination, and a psychological examination.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and had no ongoing impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's functional abilities, normal gait, and lack of reliance on pain medication undermined the need for the chronic pain program.

Furthermore, previous assessments had already concluded the applicant suffered no neurological or psychological impairments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his psychological impairments and chronic pain warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment that would remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical assessments, noting the applicant had returned to full-time work and had not reported psychological symptoms to his treating physicians.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were found not payable as they exceeded the $3,500 MIG limit.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish accident-related psychological impairments or chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical assessments which showed limited functional impairment.

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

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits 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 failed to prove his pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for various treatment plans, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently denied.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing he suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's claims were unsupported by objective medical evidence and contradicted by social media evidence showing him engaging in strenuous physical activity and travel.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG and dismissed the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries—including chronic pain and psychological impairments—warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, which relied heavily on subjective self-reporting without sufficient objective medical documentation or validity testing, failed to establish chronic pain or severe psychological injury.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary only up to the remaining MIG limit.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as there was no evidence the insurer acted unreasonably.

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 statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, noting a lack of ongoing medical treatment or complaints in the clinical records.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

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

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

The respondent determined the injuries were minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he suffered from a concussion, chronic pain, and a psychological impairment, which fall outside the MIG.

The Tribunal excluded a late-filed psychological assessment report due to prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims of concussion, chronic pain, or psychological impairment.

Consequently, the injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the claims for treatment plans and assessments beyond the MIG limit, as well as interest, were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans for chiropractic and physical therapy were reasonable and necessary, as they were proposed years after the accident with little evidence of functional improvement.

However, the Tribunal approved the $2,000 chronic pain assessment, finding that the applicant's ongoing physical and psychological symptoms warranted a holistic, multi-disciplinary assessment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was precluded from claiming IRBs due to the late submission of a disability certificate (OCF-3), which was provided over four years post-accident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, concluding the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft-tissue injuries and did not suffer from significant psychological impairments.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, as well as the cost of several assessments, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the disputed treatment plans and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's medical assessors, who reviewed the applicant's complete medical records and found that further facility-based treatment would not lead to significant improvements and that the applicant's psychological issues were largely pre-existing or subclinical.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic treatment, medication, and assessments for chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, rejecting claims of chronic pain syndrome, psychological impairment, and a pre-existing condition that prevented maximal recovery.

As the applicant had not exhausted the $3,500 limit, the disputed treatment plans and assessments were denied, and the application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing physical and psychological conditions, as well as chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that he failed to prove his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal medical recovery.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of an accident-related psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, and claims for interest and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant sought enhanced statutory accident benefits, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

He argued the accident caused or exacerbated conditions leading to a fall and seizure weeks later.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his present impairments, including a traumatic brain injury and psychological issues, were caused by the accident rather than his extensive pre-existing medical conditions, such as diabetic neuropathy and a history of syncope.

As the applicant did not meet the catastrophic impairment threshold and his standard policy limits were exhausted, all claims for medical, rehabilitation, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits were dismissed, along with claims for interest and a special award.

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

The respondent denied several benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and were subject to the $3,500 coverage limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were sprains and strains, which are defined as minor injuries.

The Tribunal preferred the psychological evidence indicating the applicant's psychological symptoms were subclinical and did not impair her function, supported by contemporaneous counselling records showing she maintained a normal, active lifestyle.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that chronic pain removed the applicant from the minor injury limit, as there was no evidence of functional impairment.

Consequently, the claims for attendant care, treatment plans, and a non-earner benefit were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and pre-existing conditions.

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

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical assessments, which concluded the physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that there was no psychological impairment.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, interest, or an award.