Dr. Jonathan Seigel

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as he failed to prove a psychological impairment or a documented pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed because the applicant returned to work full-time and failed to submit a required OCF-10 election form.

Of the four disputed treatment plans, three were properly denied by the insurer, but one was approved because the insurer's denial notice failed to comply with s. 38 of the Schedule.

The claim for an award under Reg. 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought post-104 week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits based on insurer's examinations concluding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's experts, noting the applicant exaggerated his pain symptoms and his alleged impairments lacked an objective basis causally linked to the accident.

The application was dismissed.