Dr. Vladimir Levitin

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

The Tribunal first held that the applicant was statute-barred from disputing the denial of 14 treatment plans because he failed to apply within the two-year limitation period and did not establish grounds for an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 (falling short of the 55% whole person impairment threshold) or Criterion 8 (failing to establish marked impairments in three spheres of functioning).

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the remaining treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary onus to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for chiropractic and rehabilitation treatments from his automobile insurer.

The insurer disputed the necessity and cost of the treatments, and argued that the applicant's extended health insurer was the primary payer.

The arbitrator held that the legal burden of proof lies with the insured to demonstrate what collateral benefits were reasonably available and what balance remains owing by the automobile insurer.

The arbitrator found the treatments were reasonable and necessary, adjusted the allowable costs, and ordered the insurer to pay the outstanding balance of $993.

A special award of $250 was also granted against the insurer for unreasonably delaying payment.