Dr. Zack Cernovsky

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB), chiropractic treatment plans, and an orthopaedic assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his essential work tasks within 104 weeks of the accident, or a complete inability to work thereafter.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's examiners over the applicant's assessors, noting the lack of corroborating medical evidence for the applicant's claimed impairments.

The claims for treatment plans and assessments were also dismissed as the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to psychological treatment, a driver's reintegration evaluation, and physiotherapy.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on the opinions of the insurer's examiners who found no ongoing musculoskeletal or neurological impairment and that the psychological treatment proposed was excessive or premature.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and predominantly minor.

Regarding psychological impairments, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence over the applicant's expert, noting issues with the applicant's self-reporting and a lack of objective evidence supporting an accident-related psychological condition.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's impairments remained within the MIG, and since the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the claims for further medical benefits were dismissed.

The applicant was struck by an SUV while riding a bicycle and subsequently developed severe psychological and emotional issues, including panic attacks and difficulty swallowing.

She sought $2,260 for a psychological assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing it was unnecessary given her recent psychiatric treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the assessment reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's symptoms surfaced post-accident and persisted for years.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the cost of the assessment plus interest.