Dr. Belyakova

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

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

The applicant claimed she suffered from chronic pain and psychological injuries warranting removal from the MIG, relying on reports from a physician and a psychologist.

The Tribunal found that the expert reports were not corroborated by contemporaneous medical records, which indicated the applicant's injuries had largely resolved within five months of the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish her injuries fell outside the MIG, dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans, and denied 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 pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that his pre-existing back issues prevented maximal recovery within the MIG, or that he suffered from chronic pain or psychological impairments caused by the accident.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for additional treatment plans, assessments, and interest were 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).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments, including driving-related anxiety and depression, warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the applicant's psychological expert over the respondent's.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the specific disputed treatment plans because the applicant failed to provide the actual treatment plans (OCF-18s) or make submissions demonstrating that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

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

The respondent 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 applicant argued her psychological injuries, chronic pain, and radiculopathy removed her from the MIG, and challenged the validity of the insurer's denial letters.

The Tribunal found the denial letters were valid and timely.

Weighing the medical evidence, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessments, noting the applicant's experts failed to account for a subsequent motor vehicle accident and relied heavily on subjective reporting.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove her injuries were not predominantly minor.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for further medical benefits were dismissed.

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

The insurer paid benefits up to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit and denied further treatment plans.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing fibromyalgia condition, physical injuries including a partial shoulder tear, and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a documented pre-existing condition that precluded recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the physical injuries met the definition of minor injuries and rejected the applicant's psychological evidence due to inconsistencies and omissions in self-reporting.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and its limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial letters complied with the notice requirements under the Schedule.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits for physical and psychological injuries.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were uncomplicated soft-tissue sprains and strains, and that she failed to prove a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG, noting her quick return to work and lack of contemporaneous complaints to her family physician.

Consequently, the disputed treatment and assessment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the monetary limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that two of the applicant's claims for treatment plans were statute-barred under s. 56 of the Schedule because the appeal was filed after the two-year limitation period expired.

Another claim was barred because the applicant failed to attend a required s. 44 physiatry assessment without a reasonable explanation.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and ongoing complaints.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various medical benefits and examination costs on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor physical injuries, such as uncomplicated myofascial strains and contusions.

The applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a concussion, chronic pain, or psychological impairments that would remove him from the MIG.

As the MIG limit was already exhausted, the claims for additional medical benefits and examination costs were dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought various statutory accident benefits including attendant care, physiotherapy, psychological services, and a neuropsychological assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a fractured ankle and a mild concussion but returned to work quickly and demonstrated high functional independence.

Claims for attendant care, occupational therapy, and psychological services were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

Physiotherapy claims were denied for failure to exhaust collateral benefits.

The Tribunal granted the request for a neuropsychological assessment and minor medication expenses.

A claim for a special award for unreasonable withholding of benefits was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to non-earner benefits (NEBs), medical benefits, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly apply the legal test for NEBs and erred in fact by failing to properly consider medical evidence.

The Vice Chair found that the Tribunal correctly applied the test for NEBs as set out in the Schedule and the principles from Heath and Galdamez.

The Vice Chair also found no error in the Tribunal's weighing of the medical evidence.

The Request for Reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, a neuropsychological assessment, and an attendant care assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's left shoulder injury was a pre-existing condition that was not caused or exacerbated by the accident, failing the "but for" causation test.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's psychological assessment over the applicant's experts, finding insufficient objective evidence to support a psychological diagnosis.

The application was dismissed, and no benefits or interest were awarded.