Dr. Daniel Cohen

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, medication expenses, and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's section 44 assessments and surveillance evidence, which showed the applicant engaging in various physical activities, over the applicant's medical evidence.

The claims for medication expenses, interest, and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, psychological services, and occupational therapy assessments following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The adjudicator found that the applicant was precluded from claiming entitlement to two treatment plans submitted more than five years after the accident, pursuant to s. 20(1)(a) of the Schedule.

For the remaining plans, the adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, noting conflicting evidence regarding the applicant's recovery from a prior 2015 accident and subsequent workplace injuries.

The adjudicator also found the respondent's denial notices were compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, transportation expenses, chiropractic services, and lost educational expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting she resumed her university studies with the same course load as before the accident.

The claims for transportation and chiropractic services were dismissed for lack of evidence establishing they were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for lost educational expenses was denied because the tuition expenses were incurred after the accident, contrary to the requirements of section 21(5) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident while she was on maternity leave.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment within 104 weeks of the accident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal drew an adverse inference due to a gap in medical evidence and the occurrence of a second motor vehicle accident, concluding the applicant failed to establish causation.

The claim for IRBs beyond 104 weeks was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding the applicant's education, training, and experience.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a documented pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's multi-disciplinary independent medical examinations, which concluded the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and did not cause significant functional impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a rehabilitation benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator excluded late-filed medical reports submitted by the applicant in reply, finding their admission would prejudice the respondent.

Applying the Heath test, the adjudicator found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidence showed she continued to perform most of her pre-accident caregiving and household activities.

The claim for the rehabilitation benefit was dismissed for lack of evidence that it was reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest, costs, and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant was involved in three motor vehicle accidents in 2001 and sought income replacement benefits beyond October 6, 2002, claiming he was unable to return to his pre-accident job due to chronic pain and psychological problems.

The insurer terminated benefits based on multiple disability assessments concluding he was capable of working.

The arbitrator found that while the accidents contributed to his complaints, the applicant failed to prove he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the disability assessors over the applicant's treating physicians and experts, noting weaknesses in the latter's opinions and the fact that the applicant had successfully held other jobs post-accident.

The application for ongoing benefits and a special award was dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed ongoing income replacement benefits.

The Insurer argued his condition was not caused by the accident and he was not motivated to return to work.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered continuous depression, reduced cognitive skills, and chronic pain as a result of the accident.

Due to these cognitive and physical disabilities, the Applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his job as a welder.

The Arbitrator ordered the Insurer to pay ongoing income replacement benefits and the expenses of the arbitration.