Dr. Leon Rivlin

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) from the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained an accident-related psychological impairment that caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a grocery store cashier.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that this impairment caused a complete inability to engage in any reasonably suited employment past the 104-week mark, but that this complete inability resolved by June 2, 2023, when she was ready to return to work.

The applicant was awarded an IRB of $400 per week from October 4, 2020, to June 2, 2023, plus interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including psychological assessments, chronic pain assessments, chiropractic services, and a gym membership.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits and argued the applicant was barred from proceeding because she failed to attend a neurology insurer's examination.

The adjudicator found the neurology examination was not reasonably necessary, allowing the application to proceed.

However, the adjudicator dismissed all claims for benefits, finding the applicant failed to meet her onus to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as she did not provide sufficient medical evidence linking her complaints to the accident or showing the goals of the treatment plans could reasonably be met.

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 the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued her pre-existing knee osteoarthritis, psychological impairments, and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the pre-existing condition was not exacerbated by the accident and did not prevent maximal recovery.

The Tribunal also found insufficient medical evidence to support a psychological impairment or chronic pain diagnosis that would remove the applicant from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.