Dr. Taromi

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to various attendant care benefits and treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal evaluated the applicant's impairments under Criterion 7 (Whole Person Impairment) and Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal rejected several of the applicant's physical impairment ratings due to a lack of causal evidence and methodological flaws, concluding the applicant did not meet the 55% WPI threshold.

Under Criterion 8, the Tribunal found the applicant had only mild impairments in activities of daily living and social functioning, failing to meet the threshold of three marked or one extreme impairment.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and had exhausted his non-CAT limits, the claims for attendant care and treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that her chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, as her chronic pain claims lacked objective medical corroboration and her psychological claims were inconsistent with her self-reported functionality to other assessors.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limits.

Because the MIG limits were already exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding that her motor vehicle accident injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal applied an incorrect test and failed to properly consider her pre-existing injuries and medical evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact.

The adjudicator held that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that her pre-existing injuries prevented maximal medical recovery within the MIG, and noted that the applicant had successfully returned to her pre-accident employment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that her pre-existing physical conditions and accident-related psychological injuries took her outside the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing condition prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's psychological evidence as inconsistent with her return to regular employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a rehabilitation benefit of $2,464.00 for physiotherapy following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing that collateral benefits were available and that the ongoing pain was not accident-related.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence to determine if collateral benefits were exhausted.

However, the Tribunal concluded the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, as medical evidence indicated the applicant's ongoing pain was caused by workplace repetitive strain rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on an insurer's examination which concluded the injuries were pre-existing or resolved.

The Tribunal found two of the treatment plans reasonable and necessary, rejecting the insurer's medical assessor's opinion as lacking foundation.

A third treatment plan was denied as a duplication.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue benefits but dismissed the claim for a bad faith award, finding insufficient evidence of unreasonable delay by the insurer.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, took him outside the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed psychological and physical treatment plans, as well as the cost of a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for a special award for unreasonably delayed payments was dismissed due to lack of evidence.