Dr. Igor Portnoi

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

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to outstanding amounts for psychological and psychotherapy services, accepting that a registered psychotherapist could reasonably bill at a rate comparable to a psychologist when providing structured cognitive behavioural therapy under clinical supervision.

The Tribunal also approved a chiropractic treatment plan and assessments for neurology and chronic pain, finding them reasonable and necessary based on ongoing symptoms.

However, a comprehensive chronic pain program was denied due to insufficient evidence of severity and functional decline.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the high threshold of demonstrating a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's medical experts, noting a lack of qualitative analysis of pre-accident activities and unexplained inconsistencies in self-reported functionality.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, a concussion, and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reporting and the applicant's expert assessments inconsistent with the clinical notes of treating practitioners and the respondent's assessments.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct was not frivolous or vexatious.

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to produce clinical notes and records as ordered.

The Tribunal denied the majority of the treatment plans, finding insufficient medical evidence to support them and preferring the respondent's independent medical examination over the applicant's chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal awarded $300.00 for interpretation services related to a chronic pain assessment, as the applicant is deaf and mute, but denied all claims for transportation expenses due to the 50-kilometre deductible.

Claims for a special award were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological and chronic pain evidence was outweighed by the respondent's expert assessments and the lack of contemporaneous complaints in the family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's impairments were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were denied.