Dr. Nina Belyakova

The applicant sought entitlement to various chiropractic and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident, as well as an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found all disputed treatment plans to be reasonable and necessary, noting consistent medical reporting and rejecting the insurer's credibility concerns.

The Tribunal also granted an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits, particularly by denying psychological services despite agreement between its own assessor and the applicant's assessor.

The award was set at 10% for psychological services and 5% for chiropractic services.

The applicant was injured in a snowmobile accident and sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The respondent disputed the catastrophic impairment designation and denied several treatment plans and assessments.

The adjudicator found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment, concluding he had marked impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, and adaptation, despite the respondent's reliance on social media posts showing the applicant travelling.

The adjudicator awarded the disputed treatment plans at the catastrophic impairment rates and awarded HST on the assessments, but capped the assessment fees at the $2,000 statutory maximum.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological condition, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychological assessor over the respondent's, noting it was corroborated by medical records of post-traumatic headaches and sleep disturbances.

The Tribunal awarded the costs of a psychological assessment and psychological treatment, but denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy, finding the physical injuries were minor and unrelated degenerative issues.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and various statutory accident benefits, including attendant care and housing modifications.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, noting extensive pre-existing psychiatric and behavioural issues, including prior traumatic brain injuries and a need for 24/7 supervisory care that predated the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, finding the applicant's functional impairments were not caused by the subject accident.

All claims for benefits, assessments, 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) limit of $3,500.

The applicant argued his injuries fell outside the MIG due to psychological impairments, chronic pain, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries (back and shoulder sprains) and failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from an accident-related psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied, and no award for unreasonable delay was granted.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries, including alleged psychological impairments, chronic pain, and radiculopathy, warranted removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for certain incurred treatment expenses because the respondent failed to provide compliant denial notices under sections 38(8) and 38(9) of the Schedule.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically requesting funding for a functional abilities evaluation (FAE).

The applicant also attempted to add a claim for psychotherapy treatment late in the proceedings, which the Tribunal denied due to procedural unfairness.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the FAE was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's medical reports, which relied heavily on self-reporting, and preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments, which found no functional impairment and noted the applicant's self-limiting behavior during testing.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries were not predominantly minor due to chronic pain, a psychological condition, and a pre-existing condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor (sprains, strains, whiplash).

The tribunal rejected the applicant's evidence of chronic pain syndrome and found her mild psychological condition did not inhibit useful functioning.

Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery.

Consequently, the applicant was subject to the $3,500 treatment limit, and her claims for further benefits and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, including cervical and thoracic strains, were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a psychological injury or a pre-existing medical condition that would remove her from the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant is subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and the claims for additional treatment plans and examination costs were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were minor and that she did not have a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the applicant's claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed as the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The applicant sought medical benefits for psychotherapy and driving reintegration sessions, as well as transportation expenses, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent partially approved the medical benefits but denied the enhanced hourly rates and two-hour sessions requested, as well as the transportation expenses.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide medical evidence justifying the enhanced rates or longer sessions.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for transportation expenses because the applicant failed to establish a causal link between his licence suspension and the accident, and failed to provide the required particulars.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought payment for a neurological assessment and the disputed balance of a driving evaluation assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the neurological assessment was not reasonable and necessary, as the insurer's examination concluded injuries were soft tissue in nature and the applicant provided no corroborating expert evidence.

For the driving evaluation assessment, the Tribunal allowed the cost of preparation services but denied the costs for mental health counselling (which duplicated an earlier psychological assessment) and the treatment provider's mileage (which is not payable under the Schedule).