Dr. Lyndon Mascarenhas

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued her injuries fell outside the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient compelling medical evidence to establish a pre-existing condition or chronic pain syndrome.

Applying the "but for" test for causation, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's psychological impairments were related to social, work, and family stressors rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a Functional Abilities Evaluation (FAE), vocational assessments, and a Chronic Pain Assessment (CPA) following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the FAE and vocational assessments were reasonable and necessary to determine the applicant's capacity to work as a drywaller and painter, awarding the prescribed maximum of $4,400.00 plus interest.

However, the claim for a CPA was denied because the applicant already had a comprehensive chronic pain diagnosis and the proposed assessment would not provide new medical guidance.

The respondent's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits, as well as the cost of a vocational assessment, from her auto insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and not related to the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objective medical evidence, including CT and MRI scans, established that the applicant suffered from disc herniation and radiculopathy caused by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded that the requested physiotherapy, chiropractic, psychological services, and vocational assessment were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded the claimed benefits with interest, and no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant was involved in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, housekeeping, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's chronic pain and psychological impairments were not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator applied the material contribution test and found the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing conditions, causing permanent impairment to her right shoulder and psychological disorders.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits, certain medical and assessment costs, and interest, but her claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed due to insufficient credible evidence.

In a medical malpractice and conspiracy action, a defendant physician moved for summary judgment and to strike claims under Rules 20, 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11.

The court held that the conspiracy allegations required the forensic machinery of a trial and declined to apply the best-foot-forward principle on this record.

On the malpractice claim, the court found the existing anesthesiologist report insufficient on the general practitioner standard of care but concluded a treating physician was not categorically disqualified from providing qualifying opinion evidence.

The motion was made conditional on service of a compliant report within 30 days, failing which the action against the moving physician would be dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought payment for various medical and rehabilitation expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing in part that the referring physician had an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding one of the treatment centres.

The arbitrator found that while the physician failed to disclose his ownership of the centre, the insurer had not previously approved the treatment plan, meaning the automatic exclusion under section 38(20) of the Schedule did not apply.

However, the arbitrator scrutinized the medical necessity of the treatments, awarding partial costs for acupuncture, the family physician's accident-related services, and certain diagnostic testing, while denying costs for structured physiotherapy.

The arbitrator also awarded overdue interest and dismissed the insurer's claim for repayment of disability benefits due to lack of proper notice.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The Insurer terminated weekly income benefits on March 31, 1993.

The Applicant sought arbitration for further weekly income benefits, supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses, and housekeeping and child care expenses.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant was not substantially unable to perform her essential tasks and dismissed the claim for further weekly income benefits.

The arbitrator awarded certain supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses, including transportation and a club membership, but denied the claim for housekeeping and child care expenses due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant sought weekly benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident essential tasks.

The insurer terminated benefits based on independent medical examinations and a functional abilities evaluation indicating symptom magnification and an ability to perform daily activities.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence inconsistent and accepted the medical evidence that he was capable of performing his essential tasks.

The claim for weekly benefits was dismissed, but the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses as the claim was not frivolous.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought arbitration to reinstate the benefits, claiming a substantial inability to perform essential tasks.

The arbitrator reviewed conflicting medical evidence and preferred the functional abilities evaluation of an occupational therapist, which demonstrated the applicant could perform his essential daily tasks.

The claim for ongoing weekly benefits was dismissed, though the applicant was awarded the expenses of the arbitration.