Danny Horban

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim for an attendant care benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal ignored evidence of his reliance on his wife, conflated his awareness of medical restrictions with functional ability, and improperly relied on a catastrophic assessment over an attendant care assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-weigh the evidence and raise new arguments not presented at the initial hearing.

The Tribunal concluded no error of law or fact was established under Rule 18.2.

The applicant, a minor struck by a car while riding a bicycle, sought statutory accident benefits including a non-earner benefit and funding for chiropractic treatment plans.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, as medical evidence indicated only soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for a non-earner benefit, finding insufficient evidence of a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and found the treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for social rehab counseling, a catastrophic impairment assessment, and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal denied the travel expenses for service providers, finding they are not authorized transportation expenses under the Schedule.

The Tribunal also denied the catastrophic impairment assessment costs exceeding the $2,000 statutory cap.

Finally, the claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the applicant's own self-reporting and occupational therapy assessments indicated he was independent in his activities of daily living.

The applicant sought entitlement to a $2,460 treatment plan for an orthopedic assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the plan based on insurer's examinations (IEs) concluding the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and the assessment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical records supporting ongoing complaints and gave little weight to the applicant's expert who conducted a virtual assessment based solely on self-reporting.

The Tribunal accepted the in-person IE assessments which found only minor soft tissue injuries.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, medical cannabis, an emotional support dog, and home modifications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, or home modifications, as they were not reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to reimbursement for incurred medical cannabis expenses to manage her chronic pain syndrome, and to an emotional support dog to address her accident-related anxiety, as she had already attempted frontline treatments.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue payments but declined to grant an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding no unreasonable delay by the insurer.