Dr. Ilya Gladshteyn

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) and that disputes for two plans were statute-barred.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from disputing the orthopaedic and physiotherapy plans because she failed to apply within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule, and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to establish that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claim for psychological services was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy services and a driving reintegration assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, relying on independent medical examinations and arguing the expenses were not incurred within 260 weeks of the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the treatment plans to be reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors over the insurer's examiners.

The Tribunal also rejected the insurer's argument regarding the 260-week limitation, noting that requiring an insured to pre-pay for treatment would disadvantage the impecunious.

The applicant was awarded the costs of both treatment plans plus interest.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to funding for psychotherapy, a neuropsychological assessment, and a COGMED assessment/treatment, as these were reasonable and necessary given objective evidence of a traumatic brain injury and ongoing psychological symptoms.

Claims for chiropractic services and a driver evaluation were dismissed.

The Tribunal also held the applicant was barred from pursuing a neurological assessment due to his failure to attend scheduled insurer's examinations without a reasonable explanation.

A claim for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the approved treatment plans.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including treatment plans for occupational therapy, a chronic pain program, and assessments for neuropsychological, chronic pain, functional cognitive, and catastrophic impairment, as well as a SPECT scan.

The insurer denied the claims.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the proposed plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on insurer examination reports and surveillance evidence showing the applicant engaging in normal activities, which contradicted the applicant's self-reported functional limitations and the opinions of his assessors.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 funding limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that she sustained psychological injuries and chronic pain that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological evidence was refuted by the insurer's expert and contemporaneous medical records, and that she did not meet the criteria for chronic pain.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, and therefore she was not entitled to the claimed medical benefits or interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied treatment plans for psychiatric, social work, and chronic pain assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain or psychological injuries caused by the accident, preferring the insurer's expert evidence over the applicant's.

As the applicant's injuries did not fall outside the MIG and the $3,500 funding limit was exhausted, the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims 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 her injuries fell outside the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient compelling medical evidence to establish a pre-existing condition or chronic pain syndrome.

Applying the "but for" test for causation, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's psychological impairments were related to social, work, and family stressors rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing knee condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery.

Relying on the respondent's independent medical examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the claims for chiropractic services were denied.

The applicant sought payment for a neurological assessment and the disputed balance of a driving evaluation assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the neurological assessment was not reasonable and necessary, as the insurer's examination concluded injuries were soft tissue in nature and the applicant provided no corroborating expert evidence.

For the driving evaluation assessment, the Tribunal allowed the cost of preparation services but denied the costs for mental health counselling (which duplicated an earlier psychological assessment) and the treatment provider's mileage (which is not payable under the Schedule).

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

The insurer denied the treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to provide notice of its denial within the required 10 business days under section 38(8) of the Schedule, and was therefore prohibited from relying on the MIG limit.

However, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed psychological treatment was reasonable and necessary, as the objective medical evidence did not support a significant psychological impairment.