Dr. Calvin Breslin

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for optometric services, a functional abilities evaluation, and physiotherapy following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference from the applicant's failure to produce agreed-upon medical and employment records.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which indicated the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and that the proposed vision therapy was not a recognized treatment.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a treatment plan for cognitive behaviour therapy, a plan for cognitive therapy and concussion-focused counseling, and a psychiatric assessment, as these were supported by medical evidence or previously approved by the respondent.

Claims for a new mattress, optometric services, an EMG assessment, a sleep study, and expenses submitted on OCF-6 forms were denied for lack of contemporaneous medical support or because they were incurred prior to approval.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a 25% special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 for its stubborn and inflexible conduct in failing to pay for the CBT and psychiatric assessment plans that it had already approved.

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, including multiple treatment plans for social work, case management, vision therapy, and psychological services, as well as reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving the claimed benefits were reasonable and necessary, largely due to a lack of contemporaneous, corroborating medical evidence and a failure to properly reference evidence in the document brief.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were consequently denied.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal evaluated the competing multidisciplinary assessments to determine if the applicant met the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7.

The Tribunal rejected several of the applicant's proposed impairment ratings, including those for the lumbar spine, headaches, mental status, and medication, finding them inconsistent with the AMA Guides and medical evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's combined whole person impairment was 45%, falling short of the catastrophic impairment threshold.

The application for benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.