Dr. D. Rozen

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the test for a non-earner benefit, as she did not provide compelling evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for attendant care benefits because the applicant failed to prove that any such expenses were incurred.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a psychological assessment, a chronic pain assessment, and portions of the proposed psychological treatment and chronic pain program, along with interest.

The applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome, satisfying three of the six criteria under the AMA Guides, and was therefore removed from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved two physiotherapy treatment plans and partially approved an attendant care assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, claims for psychological treatment and assessments were dismissed due to a lack of corroborating evidence.

The applicant was awarded interest on the overdue benefits but denied an award under Regulation 664, as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.