Dr. Arnold Rubenstein

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

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

The applicant contended that she suffered from accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment that would remove her from the MIG.

As the disputed treatment plans were submitted on the basis that the injuries were outside the MIG, they were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans and non-earner benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she sustained a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal held that the insurer's denial notices failed to provide sufficient medical reasons as required by sections 38(8) and 36(4) of the Schedule.

Consequently, the insurer was prohibited from relying on the MIG for the disputed treatment plans, and the treatment plans and non-earner benefits were payable due to the insurer's procedural non-compliance.

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

The insurer denied income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits, arguing the applicant was not employed at the time of the accident and her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove she was employed pre-accident, dismissing the IRB claim.

However, the Tribunal determined the applicant sustained a concussion, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal denied a chiropractic treatment plan as not reasonable and necessary, but approved a psychological assessment treatment plan, reducing the hourly rate to comply with FSCO Guidelines, and awarded $1,847.46 plus interest.

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

The insurer denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries, including soft tissue injuries, were predominantly minor and did not remove her from the MIG.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claim of chronic pain syndrome, noting a lack of supporting medical evidence and functional impairment.

As the injuries fell within the MIG, the treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving that his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychological assessor and the applicant's treating family physician over the applicant's psychological expert.

As the injuries were predominantly minor, the application for disputed treatment plans, interest, and a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy, massage therapy, and a psychological assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and the $3,500 limit had been reached.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to establish a pre-existing medical condition that would prevent maximal recovery under the Guideline.

The application for benefits and an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them at the two-year mark.

The applicant brought a motion for interim benefits pending arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had demonstrated a strong case for ongoing entitlement and severe financial hardship.

The arbitrator also excluded video surveillance evidence proffered by the insurer due to late and incomplete disclosure under Rule 40 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The motion for interim benefits was granted.