Dr. Ronald Frey

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant's impairments were moderate and stemmed from pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's assessors, finding that the applicant suffered marked impairments in the spheres of activities of daily living, social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant is catastrophically impaired.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was barred from proceeding with his application before the Tribunal under section 55 of the Schedule for failing to fully participate in neuropsychological and psychological insurer's examinations under section 44.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had attended the examinations, though he did not complete all tasks.

Crucially, the Tribunal held that the respondent's notices for further psychological examinations were deficient because they failed to provide adequate medical or other reasons for the repetitive assessments.

Consequently, the respondent could not rely on section 55 to bar the application, and the applicant was permitted to proceed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and two treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on multiple independent medical examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the tests for both pre-104 and post-104 IRB, as he suffered from a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, noting that the respondent's assessors evaluated the applicant in silos and failed to provide an integrated assessment of his physical and psychological impairments.

The treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment were deemed reasonable and necessary.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) beyond the 104-week mark, claiming a complete inability to work due to severe psychological impairments, including PTSD and psychosis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's psychiatric evidence persuasive and concluded she met the test for post-104 IRBs.

The Tribunal also found the insurer unreasonably delayed paying the pre-104 IRB for approximately four years despite having all necessary information, and ordered a 20% award on the pre-104 IRB amount under Regulation 664.

The claim for an award on the post-104 IRB was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological injuries and chronic pain.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological and medical evidence, which indicated symptom magnification and malingering, over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG and, as the funding limit was exhausted, dismissed the application for further medical benefits, interest, and an award.