Dr. Marc Mandel

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome and a mild traumatic brain injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's expert medical evidence was not corroborated by the clinical notes and records of her family physician.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet her burden to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, and dismissed the application.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition caused by the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical examination reports, which were based on physical and psychological assessments, over the applicant's evidence.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, and her claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting a lack of objective medical evidence supporting functional impairment or psychological disability.

The Tribunal relied on independent medical examinations and the applicant's own family physician records, which did not substantiate the claimed impairments.

As the applicant was confined to the MIG limits, the claims for additional treatment plans, interest, and a punitive award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove that his pre-existing low back pain prevented maximum recovery within the MIG, or that he suffered from accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing right knee and psychological conditions, as well as accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG or that she suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, noting a lack of corroborating clinical notes from her family doctor.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment and assessment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from an accident-related psychological impairment, specifically an Adjustment Disorder, which removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating professionals over the insurer's assessors.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the disputed physiotherapy treatments, psychological services, and various assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The respondent was ordered to pay the disputed plans along with interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing he should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment, noting his expert's report lacked corroborating medical records and did not clearly align with the AMA Guides criteria.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's psychological claims, preferring the respondent's expert who found a lack of objective information supporting a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG limits.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found the applicant suffered from psychological conditions, including PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, which removed her from the MIG.

The adjudicator approved a psychological services treatment plan and partially approved a physical therapy treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Claims for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 and costs were dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to an accident-related psychological impairment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's section 44 assessors.

The applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as she failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life under the Heath test.

Several treatment plans were found payable either because they were reasonable and necessary or because the insurer failed to provide adequate medical reasons for denial as required by section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to support a chronic pain diagnosis under the AMA Guides or a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's expert reports, noting they relied heavily on self-reporting and lacked psychometric testing or corroborating medical records.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to establish an accident-related psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, noting a lack of corroborating medical evidence.

As the applicant remained in the MIG and the funding limit was nearly exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming that his psychological injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no clinically significant psychological condition, over the applicant's expert, whose diagnoses were not supported by objective psychometric testing.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, dismissing the claims for treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving chronic pain with functional impairment, noting inconsistencies in her medical records and a lack of objective evidence supporting the criteria for chronic pain syndrome.

The adjudicator also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no need for services beyond the MIG, over the applicant's evidence.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, she was subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and her claims for psychological and chronic pain assessments, as well as interest, were dismissed.

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

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments, including anxiety and sleep disturbances, removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for a physiotherapy treatment plan and a psychological assessment, finding both reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's requests for a special award and costs due to the insurer's late disclosure of documents were denied, as the conduct did not meet the high threshold for unreasonableness or bad faith.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, psychological impairment, and pre-existing conditions (degenerative disc disease, scoliosis, and kyphosis).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence that his pre-existing conditions prevented his recovery within the MIG limits.

The application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian and sought statutory accident benefits for physical and psychological injuries.

The insurer limited her medical and rehabilitation benefits to $3,500, arguing her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant claimed she suffered from chronic pain, a nerve impingement, and a psychological condition (PTSD) that removed her from the minor injury limit.

The Tribunal found that her physical soft tissue injuries had resolved and rejected her psychological expert's report because the expert had never actually met her.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and dismissed her claims for further medical benefits and assessments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and his claims for statutory accident benefits were dismissed in a prior arbitration decision.

In this subsequent decision on expenses, the insurer sought its costs of the proceeding.

The arbitrator found the insurer was entirely successful and therefore entitled to its expenses.

Applying a 2:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time, and allowing disbursements for expert witnesses while disallowing conduct money for uncalled witnesses and court reporter fees, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $21,387.48.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle.

He applied for accident benefits, initially electing a non-earner benefit, but later claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove he had a reasonable explanation for delaying his re-election.

Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria for an income replacement benefit, as he was not employed for at least 26 weeks in the 52 weeks prior to the accident and was not receiving employment insurance benefits at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator also concluded that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The claims for an income replacement benefit and a special award were dismissed.

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

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for housekeeping benefits as the insurer had already paid the amount claimed.

The arbitrator awarded attendant care benefits for the period before the applicant submitted the required Form 1, finding it was submitted within a reasonable time.

The claim for ongoing income replacement benefits was dismissed because the medical evidence, including reports from the applicant's own assessors, and the applicant's unreliable testimony failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.