Dr. Christopher Friesen

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical assessments and interest on income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the proposed psychological and chronic pain assessments were reasonable and necessary, and not reasonably available through OHIP, ordering them payable with interest.

However, the orthopaedic assessment was denied as available through OHIP, and the physiatry assessment was denied as duplicative.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for interest on IRBs, finding the insurer's delay in payment was justified by the applicant's failure to provide reasonably requested documentation under section 33 of the Schedule.

A claim for a bad faith award under section 10 was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying her claims for non-earner benefits, chiropractic services, Botox injections, and psychological services following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to apply the correct legal tests, ignored medical evidence, and violated procedural fairness when an adjudicator lost hearing notes.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the original Tribunal correctly applied the test for non-earner benefits, reasonably preferred the insurer's expert evidence regarding the disputed treatment plans, and that the loss of notes did not result in procedural unfairness.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and several medical and rehabilitation treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to engage in pre-accident activities, albeit with some pain.

Claims for attendant care were denied due to reliability issues with the submitted invoices and the failure to call the applicant's assessing nurse as a witness.

The disputed medical benefits, including chiropractic care, botox injections, and psychological services, were deemed not reasonable and necessary, supported by the respondent's expert assessments and the applicant's own testimony that certain treatments were unhelpful.