Dr. Kevin Rod

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing she should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her chronic pain was caused by the accident, noting her medical evidence was either remote in time, lacked detail, or failed to account for non-accident-related conditions such as psoriatic arthritis and a recent hospitalization for meningitis.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, her claims for physiotherapy treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment, preferring the respondent's s. 44 assessment over the applicant's s. 25 assessment, which relied heavily on uncorroborated self-reporting.

Consequently, the applicant remained in the MIG, and most disputed treatment plans were not payable.

However, a psychological assessment plan was deemed payable under s. 38(11) of the Schedule because the respondent's explanation of benefits failed to provide proper medical or other reasons for denial.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying entitlement to two chiropractic treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and sought to introduce new medical evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the proposed new evidence was either reasonably available prior to the hearing or would not have impacted the outcome.

The Vice-Chair further held that the Tribunal's weighing of the medical evidence, including assigning less weight to expert reports that lacked full medical history or relied on conjecture, was open to it on the evidence and did not constitute an error of fact.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) for a six-month period during which the respondent insurer had terminated them.

The adjudicator found that the applicant, who worked as a personal support worker at two locations prior to the accident, suffered physical impairments that rendered her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

Relying on the applicant's medical evidence, including reports from her family doctor and specialists, the adjudicator ordered the respondent to pay the IRBs with interest.

However, the applicant's request for an award under Ontario Regulation 664 for unreasonable delay was denied, as the respondent had actively assessed the file and relied on its own medical assessors.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming he suffered a catastrophic impairment due to psychological and chronic pain issues.

The insurer denied the benefits, relying on assessments that found only mild impairments and suggested symptom exaggeration.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating psychiatrist and found the applicant suffered a marked impairment in adaptation, qualifying as a catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, finding the applicant completely unable to engage in suitable employment, as well as attendant care, housekeeping benefits, and the cost of a chronic pain assessment.

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing death arising from a motor vehicle collision on October 31, 2008, in which two passengers died.

The defence brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that proceeding to trial would violate the accused's right to security of the person due to catastrophic physical injuries and severe psychological trauma.

The Crown opposed the application, citing the seriousness of the charges and public interest in prosecution.

The court granted the stay, finding that the accused suffered irreparable harm to her health and could not meaningfully participate in her own defence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and medical/rehabilitation benefits for prescription medication (primarily Oxycontin).

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life within 104 weeks of the accident, dismissing the claim for non-earner benefits.

However, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating physician over the insurer's paper-review assessor, the arbitrator found the ongoing prescription of narcotics to be reasonable and necessary for chronic pain management, awarding $25,546.02 for medication expenses.

Claims for the cost of medical reports and a special award were dismissed.