Dawn Rodie

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 various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, assistive devices, chiropractic services, and multiple assessments.

The Tribunal denied the claim for attendant care benefits, finding that the applicant's significant functional limitations were attributable to an intervening stroke rather than the accident.

The Tribunal partially approved the claim for assistive devices and fully approved the claims for chiropractic services, finding them reasonable and necessary for the applicant's accident-related neck and back injuries.

The claims for neurological, orthopaedic, attendant care, and SIE/FAE assessments were denied for lack of supporting medical evidence.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments for incurred assistive devices and chiropractic services.

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

He subsequently had a slip and fall and a second motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments were caused by the first accident, but he failed to prove that his physical impairments were caused by the first accident, as they were likely caused by the subsequent slip and fall or second accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for physical treatment plans due to lack of causation.

The claims for psychological treatment and assessments were also dismissed because the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, or failed to comply with the signature requirements under s. 38(3) of the Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $3,744.32 for chiropractic treatment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the treatment plan on the basis that it was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied a three-part test and found that the applicant failed to provide compelling contemporaneous medical evidence to support the need for treatment three years post-accident.

Relying on an insurer's examination report which noted the applicant's condition was static, the Tribunal concluded the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

The claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week mark following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the accident caused the applicant's impairments, she failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's independent medical examinations and functional evaluations over the applicant's subjective complaints and expert evidence, noting credibility issues and the employer's willingness to accommodate her.

The application for IRBs, interest, and a special award was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as an early childhood educator due to psychological and physical impairments.

The insurer denied the claim based on multiple insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, noting that her own treating psychiatrist's records indicated her depression and post-concussion syndrome had largely resolved.

The appeal for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a treatment plan proposing physiotherapy and massage therapy.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan based on an insurer's examination.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement, the treatment goals were unattainable, and previous treatment had not resulted in pain reduction.

The application for benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $1,482.00 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan based on an insurer examination which concluded the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's back and neck injuries were pre-existing and not accident-related.

Furthermore, the proposed treatment was substantially similar to previous physiotherapy that had worsened the applicant's condition.

The application was dismissed and no interest was payable.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she was unable to return to her pre-accident employment as a retail customer service representative.

The insurer denied the claim, citing surveillance evidence, failure to disclose a prior workplace injury, and failure to disclose an offer of modified work from her employer.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence unpersuasive due to these omissions and preferring the insurer's medical assessments, which included validity testing and found no objective physical impairment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and attendant care benefits from the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, who was self-employed in a physically demanding construction job, suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, relying on the respondent's own physiotherapist's assessment.

The Tribunal awarded IRBs at $400.00 per week and attendant care benefits based on the Form 1 hourly rate, along with interest on overdue payments.