Dr. Roy Baskind

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a 2020 motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant was not subject to the Minor Injury Guideline, as the insurer had previously removed her from it.

The applicant was awarded a chronic pain assessment based on her family doctor's records, and the balance of a mental health assessment due to a non-compliant denial notice by the insurer.

Claims for psychological, physiatry, and neurological assessments were dismissed, as was the claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including multiple treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic, and psychological services, as well as attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans and attendant care expenses were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's independent examiners over the applicant's assessors and noted the applicant's failure to provide requested information to the insurer.

Claims for interest and an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 were also dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed both parties' preliminary requests for adjournments.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that while the applicant was self-employed at the time of the accident, he failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment within the first 104 weeks, as evidence showed he continued to work under a lucrative contract performing similar duties.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the more stringent post-104-week test of a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment.

The application for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed, as the self-represented applicant's conduct did not rise to the level of serious misconduct.