Dr. Scott McKenzie

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, a functional ability evaluation, and neuropsychological assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with a production order, leading to an adverse inference.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for neuropsychological assessments because the respondent had already paid the $2,000 maximum under s. 25(5)(a) of the Schedule for one of three identical plans.

The claims for physiotherapy and a functional ability evaluation were dismissed because the applicant failed to prove causation on a balance of probabilities, given evidence of pre-existing and subsequent injuries, and contradictory evidence regarding his work status.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied her claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The applicant argued that the adjudicator made significant errors of law and fact by misapprehending the evidence regarding her volunteer work, wedding planning activities, and medical limitations, and that the decision violated procedural fairness.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the adjudicator had properly weighed the evidence, including the applicant's post-accident activities and the medical reports.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, and that no error was made that would have led to a different result.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the test for a pre-104 week IRB, as her physical and psychological impairments caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as an educational assistant.

However, the claim for a post-104 week IRB was dismissed.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited, noting her volunteer work in a retail setting, her training as a wedding planner, and medical evidence indicating improvement in her condition.

Claims for a special award were dismissed, but interest was awarded on overdue pre-104 week benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans based on its examination reports.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's contemporaneous medical records, including psychological assessments and family physician notes, demonstrated that the physical therapies were reasonable and necessary to address her accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the disputed treatment plans and interest on overdue payments, but denied the applicant's request for a special award under O. Reg. 664, finding no evidence of unreasonable conduct by the insurer.