Dr. Atiemo Kessie

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove functional impairment due to chronic pain, noting inconsistencies in his self-reported activities of daily living and placing little weight on his physician's chronic pain diagnosis.

Relying on the respondent's psychological assessment, the adjudicator also found no psychological condition warranting removal.

As the injuries were deemed predominantly minor, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for an award and interest were 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 the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, meeting the criteria under the AMA Guides, and removed him from the MIG.

However, the applicant failed to provide the treatment plans or sufficient submissions to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The claims for the treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether the applicant was entitled to treatment plans for psychological services, an MRI, and a chronic pain program, as well as an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Tribunal found the psychological services reasonable and necessary, relying on expert evidence that the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing psychological issues.

However, the Tribunal denied the MRI request because the applicant failed to demonstrate why it could not be obtained through OHIP.

The chronic pain treatment was also denied, as the Tribunal found the supporting medical reports relied heavily on self-reporting and failed to account for the applicant's significant pre-accident impairments.

The claim for an award was dismissed, but interest was granted on the overdue psychological benefits.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought various statutory accident benefits including attendant care, multiple treatment plans, and assessments.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing many of the claimed needs arose from a subsequent accident rather than the subject accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to attendant care or most of the treatment plans, as she failed to differentiate her injuries between the two accidents and lacked corroborating recommendations from treating physicians.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to a chronic pain assessment and an MRI, preferring the evidence of the applicant's specialized medical assessor over the respondent's family physician.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.