Dr. Naaman

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for occupational therapy, vocational assessments, case management, attendant care, and housekeeping.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and had returned to her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker.

The Tribunal found that the disputed treatment and assessment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments which confirmed the applicant's independence in daily activities and her return to work.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments that warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitlement to a non-earner benefit, a treatment plan, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains, and that his knee pain and psychological issues were pre-existing and not aggravated by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and remained subject to the MIG.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, medical benefits for chiropractic and psychological treatment, and a special award.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and details regarding pre-accident activities.

The claims for medical benefits and assessments were also dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, with several claims lacking any supporting submissions or evidence.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant had a significant pre-accident medical history, including fibromyalgia, which had previously rendered her unable to work.

The Tribunal reviewed medical evidence, including insurer examinations and surveillance footage, which demonstrated that the applicant was able to engage in most of her pre-accident activities of daily living.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ongoing impairments were largely attributable to her pre-existing conditions and dismissed the application for non-earner benefits.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while riding his electric bike, sustaining two fractured ribs.

He sought income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical benefits, and the cost of various assessments from his insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to IRBs because he was not employed, self-employed, or receiving Employment Insurance at the time of the accident, nor had he worked 26 of the 52 weeks prior.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for medical benefits and assessments, finding that the applicant's accident-related injuries had substantially resolved by July 2017 and the proposed treatments and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award under O. Reg. 664 and interest were consequently dismissed.