Dr. L. T. Walters

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for psychological and chiropractic treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that 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 syndrome, and an adjustment disorder warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support diagnoses of chronic pain or a psychological injury that would preclude recovery within the MIG, noting the applicant's return to full-time work.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor and dismissed the claims for treatment plans and interest.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and medical benefits for taxi expenses after the rear doors of a TTC bus closed on her.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing her impairments were due to long-standing pre-existing conditions, including severe heart disease and diabetes, rather than the minor bus incident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove the accident continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The medical evidence and surveillance video demonstrated she remained capable of performing her normal activities, and her post-accident decline was more likely attributable to her pre-existing health issues and the death of her husband.

The application was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits including income replacement, dental, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant was not entitled to ongoing income replacement benefits, as she was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a companion.

The arbitrator awarded the cost of an alternative dental treatment plan, finding the accident materially contributed to the need for it, despite pre-existing dental neglect.

The claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident housekeeping duties.