Dr. Marco Chiodo

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence, such as contemporaneous recommendations from her primary care physician, to demonstrate that the disputed physiotherapy was reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator also accepted the respondent's expert evidence that the applicant had reached maximal psychological recovery and would not benefit from further psychological services.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied several treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding the interpretation of the Professional Services Guideline, the application of the limitation period, and the weighing of expert medical evidence.

The applicant also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the case and re-weigh the evidence, and failed to establish any errors of law or fact or a material breach of procedural fairness under Rule 18.2.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to psychological services, physiotherapy, and a psychological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's s. 44 psychological assessment over the applicant's s. 25 assessment, noting the applicant's expert failed to review prior medical records showing pre-existing psychological conditions.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of causation for the physiotherapy plan due to a significant gap in reporting accident-related pain.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed physical injuries including whiplash and soft tissue sprains, as well as psychological impairments such as an adjustment disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were captured by the minor injury definition and that he failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit and denied the disputed treatment plans beyond that cap, though he was awarded interest on any overdue payments within the limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to four treatment plans for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the chiropractic treatment plans were not reasonable or necessary, relying on insurer's examinations that showed normal ranges of motion and no functional impairment.

However, the Tribunal found the chronic pain assessment was reasonable and necessary because the applicant met at least three criteria for chronic pain syndrome under the AMA Guides, including emerging cannabis use disorder, fear-avoidance of physical activity, and development of psychological sequelae.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the chronic pain assessment with interest.