Dr. L. Todd Walters

The applicant sought payment for three treatment plans (OCF-18s) for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical records recommending the treatments and preferring the respondent's medical assessments.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life and that his impairments were related to a subsequent accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical evidence, including reports from his chiropractors and psychologist, either related to the subsequent accident, lacked a comparison of pre- and post-accident activities, or fell outside the 104-week eligibility period.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary assessment, which concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent terminated the IRBs, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a plumber apprentice.

The applicant provided no evidence of the essential tasks of his employment and failed to submit compelling medical evidence supporting his inability to work.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for two treatment plans for massage therapy to treat chronic pain.

The insurer denied the claims, relying on various medical and DAC reports.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony credible that massage therapy provided temporary pain relief, which in turn allowed her to engage in active exercise to improve her strength and endurance.

The arbitrator gave little weight to the insurer's medical reports, noting they either did not address massage therapy or lacked sufficient reasoning.

The arbitrator concluded that the massage therapy was a reasonable and necessary medical benefit under section 14 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and ordered the insurer to pay the claimed amount of $5,190 plus interest.

The applicant was injured while riding as a passenger on a streetcar and applied for statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, housekeeping expenses, and transportation expenses.

The insurer denied the claims, and the applicant sought arbitration.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims, finding that medical evidence and surveillance contradicted his assertions of ongoing impairment and inability to perform pre-accident activities.

The arbitrator also found the applicant's evidence regarding transportation expenses unreliable.

Although the arbitrator declined to impose a penalty for a frivolous or vexatious proceeding, he awarded the insurer $1,250 in expenses because the applicant's claims were manifestly unfounded.