Dr. Alexander Rabinovich

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

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant demonstrated chronic pain with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG, based on reports from an orthopaedic surgeon and an OHIP-funded specialist.

The Tribunal denied the proposed physiotherapy treatment plans as the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal partially approved a chronic pain assessment plan for $2,200.00, finding sufficient grounds to investigate the pain condition.

Interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought $798.00 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, as the supporting medical recommendation was over a year old and lacked contemporaneous evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for costs, finding the respondent's erroneous limitation defence did not meet the threshold for bad faith.

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

The respondent denied the benefit, relying on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the test for an IRB, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating physicians and the respondent's own kinesiologist, who found the applicant demonstrated functional limitations below the physical demands of his pre-accident job as a café supervisor.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's other experts, noting inconsistencies in their reasoning.

The applicant was awarded the IRB with interest, but his claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic, massage therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, and assistive devices.

The Tribunal found that the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing right hip osteoarthritis, necessitating a hip replacement.

The Tribunal approved a May 2022 treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy, as well as a long-handled tub scrubber, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The remaining treatment plans were denied due to a lack of compelling evidence demonstrating their necessity or because the expenses were incurred prior to the submission of a treatment plan.

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary and that the claims were barred by the 260-week limitation period under s. 20(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the claims were not time-barred, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.