Dr. Majl

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

The respondent suspended income replacement benefits after the applicant failed to provide requested financial and tax documents.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents were reasonably required under s. 33(1) of the Schedule to verify pre- and post-accident income, and upheld the suspension of benefits.

The Tribunal also approved treatment plans for physiotherapy and partial payment for physiatry and neurological assessments, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's ongoing chronic pain and concussion symptoms.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed as the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7, accepting a combined Whole Person Impairment rating of 55% based on musculoskeletal, headache, medication, and psychological impairments.

While the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to attendant care and housekeeping benefits in principle, it held that no benefits were payable because the applicant failed to prove the expenses had been incurred.

The claims for medical benefits, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied treatment plans for chiropractic care and a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor, she had demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that she sustained psychological and neurological impairments justifying removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the $2,200 psychological assessment as reasonable and necessary, but denied the $2,095.28 chiropractic treatment plan, finding the physical complaints did not warrant further facility-based intervention.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Zhen Ling Yan, to attend defence psychological, neurological, and physiatry assessments in a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant required leave under Rule 48.04(1) as the action was set down for trial.

The Master found leave was not required, distinguishing between setting an action down for trial and consenting to it being placed on a trial list under Rule 48.06(1).

The Master further found the assessments necessary for trial fairness, given the plaintiff's claims of serious injuries and expert reports.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including caregiver, attendant care, housekeeping, and medical benefits, following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated these benefits after approximately one year based on insurer examinations finding no objective evidence of impairment.

The arbitrator dismissed all of the applicant's claims, finding the applicant lacked credibility due to his failure to disclose a significant pre-accident history of chronic pain to his assessors and his family doctor.

The arbitrator gave little weight to the applicant's medical expert, whose opinion relied entirely on the applicant's subjective and unreliable history.