Dr. Eric Silver

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing she should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing condition involving partial paralysis from childhood polio.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence from a treating practitioner that her pre-existing condition would prevent her from achieving maximum medical recovery within the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's examination report, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG and the limits were not exhausted, the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and the claim for interest were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and a non-earner benefit.

The applicant argued that her pre-existing chronic pain, anxiety, and depression, as well as post-accident chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded maximal recovery within the MIG, and failed to prove she suffered from accident-related chronic pain.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as her post-accident functional limitations were consistent with her pre-accident medical history.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, as she failed to establish that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments warranted removal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for an income replacement benefit (IRB), finding she did not prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment during the pre-104-week period.

Claims for a treatment plan, an award, and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for two treatment plans for chiropractic services and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits based on an independent medical examination which concluded the injuries had largely resolved.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of formal referrals for chiropractic treatment and an absence of progress reports demonstrating that treatment goals were being met.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

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 and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition, noting significant gaps in medical treatment and a lack of corroborating evidence in the family physician's records.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the application for the disputed treatment plans and an award.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for various physiotherapy, chiropractic, and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator relied on section 44 insurer examination reports which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and lacked objective evidence of ongoing accident-related pathology.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued her injuries fell outside the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that her mild scoliosis and arthritic pain were caused or exacerbated by the accident to the level of chronic pain with functional impairment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no objective medical evidence of a psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

As the injuries did not remove the applicant from the MIG, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and special award were denied.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to several chiropractic and psychological treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a concussion, chronic pain with functional impairment, or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's multidisciplinary assessments, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological condition, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychological assessor over the respondent's, noting it was corroborated by medical records of post-traumatic headaches and sleep disturbances.

The Tribunal awarded the costs of a psychological assessment and psychological treatment, but denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy, finding the physical injuries were minor and unrelated degenerative issues.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, an award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to produce ordered medical and employment records without explanation.

Relying on the respondent's medical assessments, the adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he remained independent with self-care, household tasks, and his studies.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied as no benefits were owed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG, or that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment.

Relying on the respondent's psychological assessment, the Tribunal also concluded the applicant did not suffer from a psychological injury warranting removal.

The application for disputed treatment plans and assessments was dismissed as the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments, pre-existing conditions, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to produce required medical records.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a psychological impairment, that her pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG, or that she developed chronic pain as a result of the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that her physical injuries, psychological impairments, and pre-existing diabetes warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including illegible clinical notes and a virtual psychological assessment, unpersuasive.

Preferring the respondent's in-person medical assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered only minor soft tissue injuries and mild psychological symptoms that did not meet the criteria for impairment.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that her diabetes would prevent maximal recovery.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and her claims for additional treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's and noted a lack of ongoing accident-related complaints in the clinical records.

The application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she suffered a catastrophic impairment under Criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a whole person impairment of at least 55 per cent, as the physical and psychological impairment ratings provided by her assessors were largely unsubstantiated by contemporaneous medical evidence.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove marked impairment in at least three areas of function due to a mental or behavioural disorder resulting from the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans, arguing that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain or psychological impairments sufficient to remove him from the MIG, relying on the clinical notes of his treating physician and the respondent's section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a $2,416.63 treatment plan for chiropractic services, interest, and an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence addressing the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed chiropractic treatment, relying instead on evidence of his psychological condition.

The respondent's medical assessment concluded the applicant no longer suffered from an accident-related musculoskeletal diagnosis.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the treatment plan was not reasonable or necessary, and denied the claims for interest and an award.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the insurer's medical examinations which showed the applicant's pain did not significantly impede his function and that he had returned to physical work.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the disputed plans exceeded the $3,500 limit, the application for the treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), chiropractic services, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to establish that his pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a plumber's apprentice.

The application was dismissed, and no further benefits or interest were awarded.

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

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

The applicant argued that he should be removed from the MIG due to accident-related psychological impairments and a pre-existing psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-accident medical records showed severe anxiety and depression, contradicting his expert's report that symptoms began after the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove that his pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery from his minor injuries if kept within the MIG.

The application was dismissed, with the applicant remaining subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.