Dr. Y. Marchuk

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

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied a physiotherapy treatment plan and income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were minor and did not warrant treatment outside the MIG, dismissing the claim for physiotherapy.

However, the Tribunal awarded IRBs for a closed period because the insurer failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 36(4) of the Schedule when responding to the applicant's disability certificate, entitling the applicant to benefits until a clear and unequivocal denial was issued.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment as a shipping company president.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's medical evidence unpersuasive as it relied heavily on self-reporting, which was undermined by credibility issues and psychological testing suggesting he was feigning symptoms.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant suffered only soft-tissue injuries and no substantial inability to work.

Claims for post-104 IRBs, interest, and the respondent's request for costs were also dismissed.

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.