Dr. Paul Kelly

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and funding for a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of her education, training, and experience to meet the post-104-week test for IRBs.

The adjudicator also denied the unapproved portion of the treatment plan, as the applicant provided no evidence to rebut the respondent's psychological assessment report.

The applicant's late motion to convert the written hearing to a videoconference was denied, as was the respondent's request for costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including physiotherapy, assistive devices, and costs of examinations for driving anxiety, functional abilities, and chronic pain.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on an orthopedic assessment that placed the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the preponderance of medical evidence, including the applicant's OHIP claims history and clinical notes, supported the reasonableness and necessity of the disputed treatment plans and assessments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimed benefits and interest, but denied the applicant's claim for a special award, finding no evidence of unreasonable delay or withholding.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision, including attendant care, medical benefits for orthotics and chiropractic treatment, costs of examinations, and medication expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove attendant care expenses were incurred and that the proposed medical treatments and assessments were neither reasonable nor necessary given the applicant's pre-existing conditions and ability to perform self-care.

The respondent's request for costs due to the applicant's disregard of page limits was also denied.

The Applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the Insurer.

The Insurer denied various treatment plans on the basis that the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and radicular symptoms.

The Arbitrator approved several treatment plans for chronic pain assessment, psychological assessment and treatment, active treatment, and a home assessment, while denying others as duplicative or unnecessary.

The Applicant was also awarded interest on overdue payments.

The insurer applied to vary or revoke a 2007 order to pay income replacement benefits, but sought to withdraw the application during the hearing, claiming its psychological expert changed his opinion.

The arbitrator allowed the withdrawal but imposed a term precluding the insurer from filing further applications regarding the 2007 order until it substantiated the expert's change of opinion.

The arbitrator also assessed the insured's expenses, awarding $18,204.83 for legal fees and disbursements, including reduced amounts for several expert reports that were deemed inefficient or of limited value.

The insurer applied to vary or revoke an order granting the insured ongoing income replacement benefits.

During the hearing, the insurer sought to withdraw its application after its psychological expert changed his opinion to support the insured's disability claim.

The insured opposed the withdrawal, seeking instead a dismissal with terms requiring the production of clinical notes and an addendum from the expert.

The arbitrator deferred ruling on the dismissal and expenses, but ordered the insurer to produce a written statement from its expert explaining the change in opinion, while allowing the parties to make further written submissions.