Dr. Brandon Kucher

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB) and treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, as the medical evidence did not support a diagnosis of accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRB, finding the applicant had returned to work and failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and occupational therapy treatment plans for a concussion.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, maintaining that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and relying on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to IRBs for a limited period before they were validly suspended for non-compliance with a section 33 request.

The Tribunal also approved the occupational therapy plans in part, finding the respondent's reliance on assessors who ignored the concussion diagnosis to be unreasonable.

The Tribunal awarded a maximum 50% special award under section 10 of Regulation 664, condemning the respondent's excessive and inflexible conduct in keeping the applicant in the MIG despite clear medical evidence of a concussion.

The applicant sought $4,093.00 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan based on insurer's examinations by a physician and a neurologist, who concluded the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling contemporaneous medical evidence to support the plan, noting the family doctor's records did not mention the accident and the chiropractic records lacked follow-up.

The Tribunal accepted the insurer's examinations and dismissed the application, including claims for interest and an award.

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a concussion and pre-existing scoliosis.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support an accident-related concussion, preferring the respondent's neurological assessment.

The Tribunal also found no compelling medical evidence that the applicant's pre-existing scoliosis would preclude her recovery within the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, assistive devices, medical cannabis, and a psychovocational assessment.

The Tribunal denied the attendant care benefits because the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred after she dismissed her personal support worker.

Claims for a new mattress and medical cannabis were also dismissed for lack of medical evidence establishing them as reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal granted the request for a psychovocational assessment, finding that the respondent's assessors had not adequately evaluated the applicant's ability to perform the heavy physical and mental demands of her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker.

The Tribunal also approved a prescription for Metformin, accepting that the applicant's accident-related inactivity exacerbated her pre-existing diabetes.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a July 2021 motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), a physiotherapy treatment plan, and medication expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to pre-104 week IRBs as he continued to work in various roles after the accident and failed to provide medical evidence of a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks.

Consequently, he did not qualify for post-104 week IRBs.

The Tribunal also denied the physiotherapy treatment plan due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence demonstrating it was reasonable and necessary.

Finally, the Tribunal found the claimed medication expenses had already been paid in full by the respondent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit and several treatment plans for physical and psychological rehabilitation and assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examination assessors, who concluded the applicant sustained minor soft tissue injuries and a temporary adjustment disorder, over the applicant's evidence.

All disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and funding for various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit because he failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal approved treatment plans for occupational therapy services, an occupational therapy assessment, and psychological assessments, finding them reasonable and necessary due to the applicant's accident-related psychological impairments.

A claim for physiotherapy services was denied as the applicant had reached maximum therapeutic benefit.

The Tribunal also awarded interest on the overdue payments but declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664.

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 sought removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain and psychological injuries, and claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate chronic pain with a functional impairment or a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not meet the burden of proving a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, and therefore was not entitled to an IRB.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and massage therapy treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal excluded the applicant's submissions beyond the 10-page limit set by a prior order.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that while the applicant's goal of pain reduction was reasonable, she failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating the specific treatment plans were necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examinations, which concluded the treatments were not reasonable and necessary due to a lack of objective impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, an Uber driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed entitlement to post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The insurer terminated IRBs on the basis that the applicant could return to suitable employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, due to the synergistic impact of his physical injuries and psychological impairments, including chronic pain and depression.

The Tribunal ordered ongoing IRBs at $200 per week plus interest, but dismissed the applicant's claims for a special award and costs, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable or in bad faith.

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 were subject to the $3,500 limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and his psychological symptoms did not meet the criteria for a formal diagnosis that would remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claim of chronic pain syndrome due to a lack of objective medical evidence and functional impairment.

The application was dismissed.