Dr. J. Siegel

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG, and determined the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain or a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed as the applicant sustained a minor injury and had exhausted the MIG funding limit.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the claim, relying on its psychiatric assessor who found only mild to moderate impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's assessors, noting that they appropriately included pain-related impairments and relied on functional occupational therapy assessments which demonstrated the applicant's significant deterioration when challenged by tasks.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered marked impairments in three of four functional domains and declared her catastrophically impaired.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments caused by the accident, rendering her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a general labourer.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the IRBs and interest on overdue amounts.

The applicant's claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's initial denial of treatment plans was not unreasonable given the medical evidence available at the time.

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

She failed to attend the arbitration hearing or file any evidence to support her claims.

The arbitrator reviewed the insurer's medical and functional assessments, which concluded the applicant could perform her pre-accident activities.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims for benefits and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses, though declined to find the proceeding was frivolous or vexatious from the outset.