Dr. Bacchiochi

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to physical injuries (lumbar sprain/strain) and psychological impairments (driving/passenger anxiety).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries that did not warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's psychological assessment that the applicant's initial driving anxiety had dissipated over time.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the claims for further treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and payment for various psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant relied on psychological assessments diagnosing trauma-related disorders.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the psychological reports as they relied entirely on uncorroborated self-reporting and lacked contemporaneous medical documentation.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, all claims for treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant was a passenger in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits 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 prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting inconsistencies between her self-reported psychological symptoms and her family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant could still engage in most of her pre-accident activities of daily living, albeit at a slower pace.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which were denied by the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the insurer's reliance on assessments limited to the MIG was flawed.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for chiropractic services, a neurological assessment, a driving evaluation, a chronic pain assessment, and a biopsychosocial assessment as reasonable and necessary.

Claims for cognitive devices, ergonomic devices, and an MRI screening were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence or failure to demonstrate necessity over OHIP-covered services.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain program and assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) cap and that the chronic pain was not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from pre-existing chronic pain that was exacerbated by the accident, preventing maximal medical recovery within the MIG limits.

Relying on medical evidence, including reports from the respondent's own independent examiners, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were not predominantly minor.

The applicant was removed from the MIG and awarded the disputed treatment plans and assessment, along with interest on overdue benefits.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, took him outside the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed psychological and physical treatment plans, as well as the cost of a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for a special award for unreasonably delayed payments was dismissed due to lack of evidence.