Deena Rogozinsky

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to chiropractic treatments, an in-home assessment, and in-home treatments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had achieved maximal recovery and functional range of motion.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examinations, noting the applicant had returned to full-time employment as a nurse and was able to participate in activities such as hiking, cycling, and yoga.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment under either Criterion 7 (55% whole person impairment) or Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, noting significant validity concerns and sub-maximal effort during the applicant's assessments.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to enhanced attendant care benefits, having exhausted her non-catastrophic limits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker.

The applicant, a self-employed bicycle delivery person, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal assessed the applicant's mental and behavioural impairments across four spheres of function.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts, the Tribunal found the applicant sustained marked impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to chronic pain and psychological impairments, entitling her to the non-earner benefit for the maximum 104-week period.

The Tribunal also partially approved several treatment plans for physical rehabilitation, acupuncture, and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 were dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

The applicant, a law student who was struck by a vehicle while riding a bicycle, sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) and entitlement to various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, as he did not demonstrate a marked impairment in three of four functional domains.

Despite accident-related challenges, the applicant successfully completed law school, passed the bar, and maintained employment as a lawyer.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans, finding that the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision finding the insured entitled to an attendant care assessment after being removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing condition.

The insurer argued that removal from the MIG did not equate to removal from the definition of a 'minor injury', and thus the insured was still barred from receiving an in-home assessment.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, holding that removal from the MIG removes all its constraints, including limits on goods and services, and that no error of law was made in the original decision.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for chiropractic care and occupational therapy, and the applicant sought an award for unreasonable delay in paying income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary, noting they were supported by the applicant's treating practitioners and consistent with the medical evidence, while rejecting the respondent's independent medical examinations as inconsistent.

The Tribunal awarded the treatment plans and interest but declined to order an award under Regulation 664, finding the respondent's two-month delay in paying the reinstated income replacement benefit was an error promptly corrected and did not constitute unreasonable conduct.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, noting she returned to work post-accident and was terminated for performance issues.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant had no functional impairments preventing her from working.

The claims for IRBs, treatment plans, and assessments were dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for two physiotherapy treatment plans and the cost of an attendant care assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary, relying on independent medical examinations which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery from soft tissue injuries.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, preferring the evidence of the insurer's assessors who conducted physical examinations over the applicant's occupational therapy paper review report.

The adjudicator found the applicant had returned to full-time work, was independent in personal care, and did not require further treatment.