Dr. Todd Levy

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, a concussion, and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reporting and the applicant's expert assessments inconsistent with the clinical notes of treating practitioners and the respondent's assessments.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct was not frivolous or vexatious.

The applicant sought funding for physiotherapy and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on the insurer's section 44 assessor who opined the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The adjudicator also denied the claim for psychological services at a higher hourly rate, finding insufficient evidence to justify paying a psychotherapist at the rate of a psychologist.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits based on section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial letter complied with the requirement to provide medical reasons under section 37(6) of the Schedule.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's expert reports due to inaccuracies and a failure to account for the applicant's significant pre-existing health conditions and prior accidents.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's section 44 assessors' opinions that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and did not require attendant care.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 of the SABS following a motor vehicle accident.

The dispute centered on whether she had marked impairments in Activities of Daily Living and Concentration, Persistence, and Pace.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered moderate impairments, she retained significant useful functioning, such as driving, caring for her autistic son, and attending the gym regularly.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a catastrophic impairment and dismissed the claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, specifically a $19,097.00 treatment plan for a catastrophic impairment (CAT) assessment and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to $9,266.00 for the CAT assessment, approving the physiatry, psychiatry, and occupational therapy components, but denying duplicative or premature elements like the intake assessment and OCF-19 completion.

The Tribunal admitted several late or disputed medical reports, finding them relevant and not prejudicial.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's denial was not unreasonable, though interest was awarded on the overdue assessment costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to chronic pain and psychological impairments, entitling her to the non-earner benefit for the maximum 104-week period.

The Tribunal also partially approved several treatment plans for physical rehabilitation, acupuncture, and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 were dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to $2,700 for social work services and various expenses for medical cannabis, preferring the evidence of her treating practitioners over the insurer's assessors.

However, the Tribunal dismissed claims for case management services and a Cefaly device for lack of supporting medical evidence.

A claim for vestibular physiotherapy was dismissed as barred by res judicata, as it had been denied in a previous Tribunal decision and the applicant's new evidence did not conclusively impeach the original result.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his physical, psychological, or chronic pain impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's in-person assessments over the applicant's virtual and inconsistent assessments.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and orthopedic impairments, specifically degenerative disc disease and foraminal stenosis.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for chronic pain under the AMA Guides, noting his reports of minimal pain to his family doctors and lack of functional impairment.

The Tribunal also found no medical evidence linking the degenerative changes on his MRI to the accident.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying three chiropractic treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made a significant error of law by preferring the respondent's medical expert, who found no objective basis for chronic pain syndrome, over the applicant's expert.

The applicant also sought to introduce a 1995 academic paper as new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the weighing of expert evidence is within the adjudicator's prerogative and did not constitute an error of law.

The Tribunal also refused to admit the academic paper, as it could have been obtained earlier and actually supported the respondent's expert's characterization of chronic pain syndrome.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he did not suffer from chronic pain syndrome that would remove him from the MIG.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans for a psychological assessment, psychological treatment, physical therapy services, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the psychological assessment and chronic pain assessment to be reasonable and necessary, noting ongoing complaints of driving anxiety and persistent pain.

The Tribunal partially approved the physical therapy plan for massage therapy and a functional exercise program based on the applicant's self-reports of pain relief.

However, the claim for psychological treatment was denied because the supporting psychological report was given no weight due to contradictory statements and lack of clarity regarding the author's diagnosis.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to three treatment plans for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and that he had recovered through a home-based exercise program.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the chiropractic treatments were not reasonable and necessary as they provided minimal improvement compared to the home exercise program.

The Tribunal also denied the chronic pain assessment, preferring the respondent's expert evidence that the applicant lacked objective markers of chronic pain syndrome over the applicant's expert, whose opinion relied on subjective reports contradicted by contemporaneous medical records.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and an orthopedic assessment following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the chiropractic treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary due to a lack of supportive medical evidence, the applicant's failure to disclose a subsequent accident to the insurer's assessors, and her failure to utilize previously approved treatment.

The cost of the orthopedic assessment was also denied because the treatment plan lacked detail and the assessor's conclusions were unsupported by his physical examination findings.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

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

The arbitrator found that the applicant's ongoing chronic pain and worsening psychological condition, which interfered with her functioning, removed her from the MIG.

The arbitrator approved treatment plans for physical therapy, psychological assessment and treatment, and chronic pain assessment, but denied several other assessments as premature or unnecessary.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue benefits.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing her claims for income replacement benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits (including a Tempur mattress and laptop computer), a neuropsychological re-assessment, and a special award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

She also appealed the arbitrator's order awarding the insurer $15,344.05 in expenses.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness by the arbitrator.

The Delegate upheld the arbitrator's factual findings that the appellant was not disabled from her pre-accident employment, that the claimed medical and rehabilitation items were not reasonable and necessary, and that the appellant's conduct unnecessarily prolonged the hearing, justifying the expenses award.