Dr. Arnold H. Rubenstein

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a documented pre-existing injury, chronic pain with functional impairment, or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not analyzed for reasonableness and necessity, and the claim for interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for a psychological assessment and a functional abilities evaluation following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the insurer's denials were procedurally defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, triggering the 'shall pay' provision of s. 38(11).

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denials provided a principled rationale based fairly on the applicant's file, relying on insurer examination reports that concluded the applicant had no accident-related psychological impairment and that his physical injuries had resolved.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and failed to provide medical evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish a chronic pain condition or psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's expert medical reports.

As the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.