Dr. Direnfeld

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders under Criterion 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a marked impairment in three domains of functioning: activities of daily living, adaptation, and social functioning, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychiatrist over the respondent's.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was catastrophically impaired.

However, the applicant's claim for a psychological services treatment plan was dismissed as he failed to provide evidence establishing it was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment and assessment plans for psychological and chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, who concluded that the applicant suffered only minor physical strains and did not meet the criteria for a psychological diagnosis, over the applicant's self-reported complaints and the reports of his treating practitioners.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding his claims of a traumatic brain injury, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, and upheld the original decision that the applicant's injuries were minor.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding his claims of a traumatic brain injury, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairment.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The Adjudicator confirmed that the original decision properly weighed the medical evidence, correctly applied the criteria for chronic pain, and appropriately assessed the applicant's psychological functionality.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a mild traumatic brain injury, a pre-existing knee condition, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a traumatic brain injury or that the pre-existing knee condition precluded recovery within the MIG.

While the applicant's assessor diagnosed Chronic Pain Syndrome, the Tribunal found no substantial functional impairment, as the applicant continued to work full-time and manage daily activities.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, concluding there was no clinically significant psychological impairment.

The applicant was held to remain within the MIG but was entitled to the remaining $1,118.77 of the MIG limit for incurred expenses, plus interest.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits and an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a pre-existing condition, physical injuries, psychological impairment, or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was not entitled to an IRB, as she had returned to full-time employment and failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The application was dismissed.

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

The central issue was whether the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions or psychological injuries sustained in the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's section 44 psychological examination over the applicant's self-reported pre-screening, concluding that the applicant did not suffer a psychological injury as a result of the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, and failed to provide copies of the impugned treatment plans, the claims for medical benefits, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a 2012 motorcycle accident, sought entitlement to 24-hour attendant care benefits ($7,522.85 per month) due to severe psychological impairments, including panic attacks, memory issues, and anger outbursts.

The respondent argued that 24-hour supervision was not an appropriate psychological treatment and recommended cognitive behavioural therapy instead.

The Tribunal found that while therapy might eventually reduce the applicant's fear of being alone, the proposed attendant care was reasonable and necessary in the interim to address significant safety concerns and manage his psychological symptoms.

The applicant was awarded the ongoing attendant care benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which was followed by a second accident less than two months later.

The insurer denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and various assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were caused by the first accident, but she failed to prove her psychological injuries were caused by it.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for an impairment assessment and a neurological assessment because its denial notices failed to comply with the medical reasons requirement under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The remaining claims for treatment plans, an award for unreasonable delay, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies between her testimony, her reported pain, and the extensive medical imaging which showed no abnormalities.

Multiple independent medical examinations concluded there was no physical or psychological barrier preventing her return to work.

The arbitrator held that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker, nor did she meet the post-104 week test of a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The claims for IRBs and interest were dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.