Dr. R. Ratti

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment plans for chiropractic, shockwave therapy, massage, acupuncture, and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the proposed treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant exceeded the ordered page limit for written submissions and excluded the excess pages.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute over statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had partially denied two treatment plans for psychological services, disputing the length of therapy sessions (1.5 hours vs. 1 hour) and the hourly rate of a psychotherapist ($149.61 vs. $100).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that 1.5-hour sessions were reasonable and necessary, as the expert reports did not specify session length.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the $100 hourly rate approved by the respondent for the psychotherapist was reasonable, distinguishing previous case law because the proposed treatment did not include Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued he sustained psychological impairments that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence uncompelling, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations which concluded the applicant suffered no significant physical or psychological impairments as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal held the applicant sustained a predominantly minor injury and was subject to the $3,500 funding limit.

As the disputed plans exceeded this limit, the claims were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued he suffered a psychological impairment outside the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical records did not establish a causal link between his psychological symptoms and the accident, and noted his symptoms were improving.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, subject to the MIG limit, and dismissed the application for further medical benefits and interest.

The self-represented applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to submit any medical evidence to support his claims.

The adjudicator relied on the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment and had no physical or psychological barriers to returning to work.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to physical and psychological impairments.

The respondent denied the benefit, relying on independent medical examinations and surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's reported limitations.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence inconsistent and preferred the respondent's medical reports, which were corroborated by surveillance showing the applicant driving, shopping, and socializing.

The application for the non-earner benefit was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physical and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) or were not accident-related.

The Tribunal found the respondent validly denied one physiotherapy plan submitted while the applicant was still subject to the MIG.

However, the Tribunal approved the remaining physical and psychological treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary to treat the applicant's ongoing accident-related chronic pain and psychological impairments.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.