Dr. Deborah Kopansky-Giles

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $3,090.09 for chiropractic services following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plan based on an insurer's examination which concluded the applicant had reached maximum therapeutic benefit and could manage with home exercises.

The adjudicator found the treatment was not reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's own admissions about performing home exercises and returning to playing basketball.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to an income replacement benefit and several treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the income replacement benefit, arguing that the applicant's inability to work was due to congestive heart failure, a stroke, and cardiac arrhythmia that were not caused by the accident.

The adjudicator applied the 'but for' test and found that the applicant failed to establish a causal link between the accident and his subsequent cardiac and neurological conditions.

Consequently, the claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed.

However, the adjudicator found that the applicant was entitled to medical benefits for chiropractic and psychological services, as well as the cost of an attendant care assessment, because these were reasonable and necessary to treat accident-related impairments.

A treatment plan for other goods and services was denied.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans for chiropractic services, psychological treatment, and a functional cognitive assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that three of the four chiropractic treatment plans and the psychological treatment plan were reasonable and necessary, ordering the insurer to pay them with interest.

However, the Tribunal denied the fourth chiropractic plan as it was duplicative and lacked a home exercise progression, and denied the cognitive assessment due to a lack of evidence of significant cognitive impairment.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle in a parking lot and sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits for chiropractic services.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in employment after the first 104 weeks, relying on independent medical examinations which concluded she could perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The adjudicator also found that the proposed chiropractic treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

All claims, including those for interest and a special award, were dismissed.