Dr. J.A. Nathanson

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its weighing of the medical evidence, specifically regarding the reports of Dr. Nathanson, Dr. Oshidari, and Dr. Wilderman.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in weighing the evidence, including giving limited weight to diagnoses of chronic pain and severe PTSD that lacked sufficient foundation or were outside the assessors' scope of expertise.

The reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and awarded various medical benefits and assessments.

The insurer argued the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons, ignored its independent medical examiners, and erred in law by relying on a chiropractor for a chronic pain diagnosis.

The adjudicator denied the request, finding the Tribunal provided adequate reasons, properly weighed the competing medical evidence, and did not require a formal chronic pain diagnosis to determine the injuries were not predominantly minor.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he did not suffer from chronic pain syndrome that would remove him from the MIG.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to ongoing income replacement benefits or attendant care benefits, as the medical evidence did not support a substantial inability to perform essential tasks or a need for ongoing care.

The Tribunal also denied requests for psychological and chronic pain assessments.

However, the Tribunal found that orthotic devices were reasonable and necessary, ordering the respondent to pay for them.

Claims for an award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, sought payment for four physiotherapy treatment plans.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery for his musculoskeletal injuries.

The adjudicator preferred the evidence of the insurer's medical examiners, finding that the applicant's pain complaints had a strong non-organic component and that further physiotherapy would not be beneficial.

The adjudicator also found that the insurer's notices of denial were sufficient.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from a workplace accident where the plaintiff truck driver suffered a severe leg fracture while using an electrical pallet jack at the defendant's premises.

The action proceeded as an undefended trial against the defendant Grocery Dayton, who failed to file a Statement of Defence.

Liability was deemed admitted under Rule 25.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court assessed damages based on the plaintiff's evidence and filed reports, awarding $125,000 in general damages, $799,100 for future economic loss, $26,100 for future care costs, and $30,000 for the spouse's Family Law Act claim, totaling $980,200.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits and supplementary medical expenses.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits, arguing she had recovered and could return to her pre-accident employment as a meat packer.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome and a major depressive disorder caused by the accident, rendering her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners and experts over the insurer's assessors.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, supplementary medical expenses, and interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them, relying on reports from its medical examiners.

The applicant sought arbitration for ongoing income replacement benefits, medical expenses, housekeeping services, and a special award.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the accident, rendering her substantially unable to perform her employment tasks.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's psychiatric expert as a partisan advocate and found the insurer acted unreasonably in terminating benefits despite overwhelming evidence of the applicant's psychological disability.

The applicant was awarded all claimed benefits and a $10,000 special award.