Dr. David Prendergast

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of chronic pain and psychological impairment unpersuasive, as it was unsupported by contemporaneous medical records and contradicted by the insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, and dismissed the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest.

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a psychological assessment and for leave to serve the resulting report after the expert report deadline, in the context of a personal injury action arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision.

The court granted the motion, finding that both parties bore responsibility for the lack of an expert report schedule and that fairness required the defendants be permitted to respond to the plaintiff’s psychological claims.

The court also granted leave for late service of the report, provided it was served by April 4, 2025, and encouraged the parties to resolve costs.

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) limit of $3,500.

The applicant argued that pre-existing cervical dystonia, constant pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer's examination reports over the applicant's psychological assessment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award were denied.

The defendant, State Farm, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Lynnette Dalton James, to attend a defence psychological examination in Mississauga.

The plaintiff agreed to the examination but requested it be held in Markham, where she resides, or by videoconference, citing vehicular anxiety and pain stemming from a motor vehicle accident.

The court, applying principles for determining the location of defence medical examinations, found that the plaintiff's choice of location was reasonable given her diagnosed Posttraumatic Stress Disorder with vehicular anxiety/avoidance.

The defendant failed to demonstrate why the examination could not be conducted at the more convenient Markham location.

The motion to compel attendance in Mississauga was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the examination in Markham or by videoconference.

The plaintiff's separate request for leave to set the action down for trial before mandatory mediation was refused.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming $2,200 for a psychological assessment and an award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant failed to demonstrate a psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, which relied heavily on self-reporting, was undermined by significant validity concerns raised by the respondent's section 44 assessor, who noted embellishment and poor effort on psychometric testing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the psychological assessment was not reasonable and necessary, and denied the claims for an award and interest.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding chronic pain to be inconsistent and preferred the respondent's psychological expert over the applicant's.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and she was not removed from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were not payable.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought a determination that he was catastrophically impaired under section 3(2)(f) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to mental or behavioural disorders following two motor vehicle accidents.

The applicant had significant pre-existing impairments from a 2002 workplace fall, including chronic pain and depression.

The adjudicator found that while the applicant suffered from a pain disorder and depression, his functional limitations were overstated and did not meet the threshold for a marked (Class 4) impairment.

Furthermore, applying the material contribution test, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant's current level of impairment was not materially caused by the motor vehicle accidents, as his condition was essentially the same as before the accidents.

The application for catastrophic impairment was dismissed.

However, the applicant was awarded $1,500 in costs due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct in delaying the closing submissions.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary assessment reports, which found no objective physical or psychological impairment preventing the applicant from engaging in her pre-accident activities, and noted evidence of symptom exaggeration.

The applicant's failure to produce pre-accident disability records further undermined her claim.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for 104 weeks.

The respondent terminated IRBs on the basis that the applicant did not meet the post-104 week test of a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his pain levels to be unreliable, noting evidence of symptom exaggeration and malingering from the respondent's expert assessors.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove he suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment and dismissed the claims for IRBs, interest, and a special award.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff to attend a further defence orthopedic examination.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court applied the seven-factor test from Bonello v. Taylor, 2010 ONSC 5723, for ordering further examinations.

The court noted that the defendants had previously chosen a physiatrist for examination despite knowing the plaintiff would rely on an orthopedic surgeon's report.

No significant change in the plaintiff's condition was demonstrated, and the defendants' own physiatrist's addendum report confirmed his original opinion remained unaltered, even after new information about a subsequent accident.

The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate the necessity for a second physical examination and dismissed the motion.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental disorder.

The insurer argued the mental disorder was genetically based and not caused by the accident.

The Arbitrator found that the accident caused the applicant's mental disorders, which resulted in a marked impairment of his ability to function, meeting the definition of catastrophic impairment.

The applicant was awarded attendant care benefits at a reduced rate, as he did not require round-the-clock care.

Claims for Botox injections and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care, non-earner benefits, and visitor's expenses.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's impairments were due to a pre-existing stroke and longstanding psychological issues.

The arbitrator found that the accident temporarily exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing physical and psychological conditions, entitling her to attendant care benefits for the first three months post-accident and for assistance with a pool therapy program.

The claims for non-earner benefits and visitor's expenses were dismissed.

Interest was awarded on the overdue attendant care benefits.

Each party was ordered to bear its own arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought arbitration for ongoing income replacement benefits, supplementary medical benefits for physiotherapy, and a determination on the availability of collateral long-term disability benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment due to chronic pain and depression caused by the accident.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, partially granted the claim for physiotherapy expenses, and found that long-term disability benefits were not available to reduce the weekly benefits.