3 total
Application for statutory accident benefits dismissed; psychological treatment barred by res judicata and catastrophic assessments lacked medical basis.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological treatment and catastrophic impairment assessments following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.
The claim for psychological treatment was barred by res judicata, having been denied in a previous Tribunal decision.
The claim for catastrophic assessments was denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate that her pre-existing osteoarthritis or psychological symptoms were exacerbated by or directly related to the accident, relying instead on self-reported assessments that contradicted her family physician's contemporaneous records.
Psychological benefits granted for accident-exacerbated anxiety; physical therapy denied based on physiatry assessment.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied treatment plans for chiropractic/massage therapy, a psychological assessment, and psychological treatment.
The Tribunal found the chiropractic and massage therapy plan was not reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's physiatry assessment which recommended a home exercise program.
However, the Tribunal found the psychological assessment and treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, concluding that the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing anxiety and depression.
The Tribunal rejected the respondent's psychiatric assessment because it failed to address the applicant's in-vehicle anxiety and lacked objective testing.
The applicant's claim for a special award under Ontario Regulation 664 was dismissed as the respondent had relied on its own medical assessments.
Applicant's claims for income replacement and medical benefits dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.
The applicant was involved in three motor vehicle accidents in 2010 and 2011 and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer, including income replacement benefits and medical benefits for various chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans.
The insurer denied the claims, arguing that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.
The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims, finding that he provided virtually no evidence regarding his pre-accident employment or the extent of his injuries.
The arbitrator relied on the insurer's medical assessments, which concluded that the applicant's injuries were minor and did not warrant treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline.
The insurer was awarded $4,000 in arbitration expenses.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.