Dr. Arnold Rubenstein

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 establish a documented pre-existing injury, chronic pain with functional impairment, or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not analyzed for reasonableness and necessity, and the claim for interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, chiropractic treatment plans, and a psychological assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits based on section 44 insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical evidence showed she could perform personal care, grocery shop, and swim.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for medical benefits, preferring the respondent's expert evidence that the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to five physiotherapy treatment plans, a general practitioner assessment, and a social work assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 medical assessments, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement, over the applicant's evidence, noting that the applicant's family physician records lacked accident-related complaints.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

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

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, noting the respondent's assessor was a psychologist rather than a psychological associate, and the applicant's assessment was from the same clinic proposing the treatment.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The applicant sought entitlement to two treatment plans for psychological services, an award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident involving her father.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found the applicant failed validity testing and exhibited symptom magnification, over the applicant's outdated progress reports that lacked objective testing data.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as he failed to establish a pre-existing condition or chronic pain with functional impairment that would warrant removal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit, finding the applicant did not meet his onus to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, and the respondent properly relied on an Insurer Examination to discontinue the benefit.

The applicant sought payment for a psychological assessment and a functional abilities evaluation following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the insurer's denials were procedurally defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, triggering the 'shall pay' provision of s. 38(11).

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denials provided a principled rationale based fairly on the applicant's file, relying on insurer examination reports that concluded the applicant had no accident-related psychological impairment and that his physical injuries had resolved.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied.

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) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had pre-existing lower back and knee conditions, she failed to provide compelling medical evidence that these conditions precluded her recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment or psychological injury.

The application was dismissed.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his ongoing back pain, including spondylolisthesis, was caused by the accident.

Furthermore, the adjudicator rejected the applicant's psychological assessment due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence, preferring the respondent's insurer examination.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and the MIG limits had been exhausted, the application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

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) and that disputes for two plans were statute-barred.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from disputing the orthopaedic and physiotherapy plans because she failed to apply within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule, and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to establish that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claim for psychological services was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder and vehicular anxiety, which removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's assessor.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed psychological assessment, psychological services, and chiropractic services, along with interest on overdue benefits.

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

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that disputes regarding three of the plans were statute-barred.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from disputing three of the treatment plans because the application was commenced more than two years after the insurer provided valid written denials, and there were no grounds to extend the limitation period under the Manuel factors.

However, the Tribunal removed the applicant from the MIG based on psychological impairments, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's assessor.

The Tribunal also found that the remaining physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to treat the applicant's chronic back pain, and ordered the insurer to pay those benefits with interest.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan 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 she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the in-person assessments of the respondent's experts and the clinical notes of the applicant's family physician over the virtual assessment of the applicant's expert.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological injury, and dismissed the application.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and failed to provide medical evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft tissue in nature and that she failed to provide compelling evidence of chronic pain, psychological impairment, or pre-existing conditions that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the proposed treatment plans exceeded the MIG limit, the application for benefits was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits 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 applicant argued her pre-existing conditions, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting the applicant's self-reports were inconsistent with medical records and she returned to work immediately after the accident.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied several 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 she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairment, pre-existing conditions, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting a lack of psychological complaints to her family doctor for over two years post-accident and placing greater weight on the insurer's psychological assessment which included validity testing.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident while working as an Uber driver.

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he was not entitled to an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove a psychological impairment, noting inconsistencies in his self-reporting and surveillance video showing him performing various physical tasks.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding no medical evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for further treatment plans and assessments were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied medical and rehabilitation benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a psychological impairment (Adjustment Disorder) that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal awarded the costs of a psychological assessment, psychological treatment, and physiotherapy.

The applicant was also awarded income replacement benefits for a limited period, the cost of an accountant's report to calculate self-employment income, and interest.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

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.