Dr. Cindi Goodfield

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, a non-earner benefit, and several treatment and assessment plans.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove entitlement to attendant care benefits, as her self-reported resumption of daily activities contradicted the assessed needs.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, given her ability to continue nursing studies, drive, and perform household tasks.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the disputed treatment and assessment plans, preferring the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant's injuries were minor and did not require the proposed interventions.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought entitlement to multiple treatment plans for physical therapy, psychological services, and various multidisciplinary assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a chronic pain assessment and the HST portion of a partially approved psychological assessment, but denied the remaining treatment plans due to insufficient medical evidence.

The Tribunal also held the applicant was statute-barred from disputing a neuropsychological assessment because she failed to attend a scheduled insurer's examination without reasonable explanation.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed as the insurer's denials were not unreasonable.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued the adjudicator committed a material breach of procedural fairness by failing to qualify her expert as a chronic pain expert, placing little weight on uncontested reports, and incorrectly interpreting the AMA Guides.

The applicant also alleged errors of law regarding the consideration of pain-based limitations and the application of the multidisciplinary approach.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness or errors of law, noting that the original decision properly weighed the evidence and correctly applied the relevant legal principles.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first dismissed the applicant's preliminary motion for summary judgment, finding no jurisdiction to dispose of substantive issues without a hearing.

On the merits, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychiatric expert over the applicant's expert, finding that the applicant's functional impairments were primarily caused by physical chronic pain rather than an accident-related mental or behavioural disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a marked or extreme impairment in any of the four areas of functioning.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $250 in costs for unreasonable delays in producing disclosures.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, including physiotherapy, a chronic pain program, psychological treatment, aqua therapy, and assessments.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on Insurer's Examination reports.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling contemporaneous medical evidence to support the treatment plans.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, noting the applicant's active work and family life and the lack of objective signs of accident-related impairment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a psychological assessment, physical therapy, and psychological treatment.

The respondent insurer denied portions of the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the disputed costs for the psychological assessment and treatment were reasonable and necessary, as the insurer's examiners had found the proposed costs excessive or partially unnecessary.

However, the Tribunal awarded the cost of the physical therapy based on the recommendation of the applicant's family doctor, which the insurer failed to rebut with medical evidence.

The applicant sought medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the monetary limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that two of the applicant's claims for treatment plans were statute-barred under s. 56 of the Schedule because the appeal was filed after the two-year limitation period expired.

Another claim was barred because the applicant failed to attend a required s. 44 physiatry assessment without a reasonable explanation.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and ongoing complaints.

The application was dismissed.