Dr. Fabio Salerno

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal applied the Heath test and found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidence showed he had resumed many activities, albeit with some modifications.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain chiropractic treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that he suffered from post-concussive syndrome, psychological impairments, and chronic pain, which should remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support these diagnoses, noting that diagnosing psychological conditions and chronic pain was outside the scope of his chiropractor's practice.

Relying on the respondent's expert reports, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

The application for treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans and non-earner benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she sustained a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal held that the insurer's denial notices failed to provide sufficient medical reasons as required by sections 38(8) and 36(4) of the Schedule.

Consequently, the insurer was prohibited from relying on the MIG for the disputed treatment plans, and the treatment plans and non-earner benefits were payable due to the insurer's procedural non-compliance.

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

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a head injury and post-concussion syndrome, which exceed the definition of a minor injury, rendering the MIG inapplicable.

The Tribunal further held that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's persistent cognitive challenges, ordering the respondent to pay the benefits with interest.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

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

Medical evidence and surveillance demonstrated that the applicant had substantially returned to his pre-accident routine, including working as a plumber and engaging in social and leisure activities.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and were subject to the $3,500 limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and his psychological symptoms did not meet the criteria for a formal diagnosis that would remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claim of chronic pain syndrome due to a lack of objective medical evidence and functional impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing that any catastrophic impairment was the result of a stroke the applicant suffered two years after the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's psychological impairments resulting from the accident met the threshold for catastrophic impairment, and that the accident materially contributed to the stroke.

The arbitrator awarded attendant care benefits for incurred professional services but denied them for family-provided care due to a lack of evidence of economic loss.

A special award was granted against the insurer for unreasonably withholding payments.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the initial period paid by the insurer.

The insurer suspended and later denied further IRBs after the applicant initially failed to attend an Examination Under Oath (EUO).

The Tribunal found that the insurer did not act in bad faith in scheduling the EUO.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment beyond the initial recovery period.

The application for ongoing IRBs, interest, costs, and a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRB).

The insurer terminated the benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the test for entitlement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was employed as a school bus driver at the time of the accident and that the accident caused her right shoulder and back pain.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist over the insurer's, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's physical limitations rendered her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment, specifically driving a school bus for extended periods.

The applicant was awarded a weekly IRB of $292.46.