Dr. Ariel Zielinsky

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming the unapproved balance of a treatment plan for psychological services and funding for a catastrophic impairment assessment.

The insurer partially denied the psychological services plan on the basis that the proposed hourly rate for a social worker exceeded the maximum permitted under the Professional Services Guideline, and denied the catastrophic assessment plan.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial letter complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to prove the unapproved psychological services were reasonable and necessary, and failed to demonstrate that her impairments warranted further investigation for a possible catastrophic impairment.

The application was 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 applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments and a concussion.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence connecting the applicant's psychological issues or alleged concussion to the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, subject to the MIG limit, and dismissed the claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and funding for chiropractic and acupuncture treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's occupational therapy assessment over the applicant's vague evidence regarding pre- and post-accident activities.

The treatment plans were also denied as the applicant failed to provide corroborating medical evidence to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal further held that the respondent's denial letters contained sufficient medical reasons under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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 she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, a concussion, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer examinations over the applicant's medical reports.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and reconsideration decision which found his motor vehicle accident injuries were subject to the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued his pre-existing shoulder injury, psychological symptoms, and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that while the adjudicator made a minor factual error regarding a physiotherapy visit, the overall conclusion was well-supported by medical evidence, including reports from the respondent's assessors.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the respondent's medical evidence which aligned with the clinical notes of the treating family physician and ER records.

The Tribunal gave less weight to the applicant's assessors due to inconsistent self-reporting by the applicant.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), rejecting claims of chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairment.

However, the Tribunal held that the insurer failed to provide compliant denial notices under section 38(8) of the Schedule for both a physiotherapy treatment plan and a chronic pain assessment.

As a result, the insurer was prohibited from relying on the MIG for the periods of non-compliance and ordered to pay the incurred costs plus interest.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a pre-existing shoulder dislocation and a psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the pre-existing condition was not worsened by the accident and did not preclude recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychiatric assessments over the applicant's psychological report, noting the lack of psychological treatment sought by the applicant.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision that upheld a finding that the respondent was catastrophically impaired and entitled to non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to identify any extricable error of law in the adjudicator's assessment of the medical evidence and whole person impairment ratings.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to hear the reconsideration request as a single member of the original two-member panel, noting that the Tribunal's rules permit such a procedure.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for medical and rehabilitation treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant argued that psychological impairments and a pre-existing condition of Crohn's disease removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered only soft tissue injuries, failed to establish a psychological impairment, and did not provide compelling evidence that his Crohn's disease prevented maximal recovery under the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to compel the plaintiff to attend three defence medical examinations and a future care assessment.

The motion judge had denied the examinations due to the insurer's failure to comply with the rules regarding the delivery of expert reports prior to pre-trial conferences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

In this personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the moving defendant sought leave after the action had been set down for trial to bring a motion compelling the plaintiff to attend a defence psychiatric examination shortly before a scheduled jury trial.

The court held the defendant knew or ought to have known for years that serious psychological impairment was being advanced and that the recent report did not amount to a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances.

The court found the late request risked imperilling the long-scheduled trial and would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff, while any prejudice to the defendant was self-induced.

Leave and the requested examination order were refused.