Dr. Harmantas

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries from the first accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as she failed to provide compelling medical evidence that pre-existing conditions would prevent her recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for a non-earner benefit and several physiotherapy treatment plans, concluding that she did not meet the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life and failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

Both parties requested reconsideration of a decision regarding entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by admitting college records and failing to address a costs request, and made errors of fact and law in weighing medical evidence.

The Respondent argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Schedule regarding assessment fee limits.

The Tribunal granted the Applicant's request in part to address the omitted costs request, which was ultimately denied, and dismissed all other grounds for reconsideration, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and fell within the MIG.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove a psychological injury that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to IRB because he continued to work post-accident and failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment as a real estate agent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical, rehabilitation, and assessment benefits from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary, relying on insurer examinations.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatment and assessment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of objective medical evidence linking his current complaints to the accident and a lack of functional impairment.

Additionally, one claim for chiropractic treatment was found to be statute-barred as the appeal was filed past the two-year limitation period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological and chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits 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 the insurer failed to provide adequate medical reasons for the denial because it did not arrange an Insurer's Examination (IE).

The Tribunal held that the insurer provided sufficient medical reasons by pointing to the lack of corroborating medical evidence in the applicant's clinical records.

Finding the applicant's psychological evidence lacked credibility, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the application.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought medical and income replacement benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his employment tasks as a taxi driver.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his knee injuries, degenerative disc disease, psychological impairments, or chronic pain were caused by the accident or warranted removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the medical benefits claims were dismissed.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies between her testimony, her reported pain, and the extensive medical imaging which showed no abnormalities.

Multiple independent medical examinations concluded there was no physical or psychological barrier preventing her return to work.

The arbitrator held that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker, nor did she meet the post-104 week test of a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The claims for IRBs and interest were dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.