Dr. Eric Silver

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

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

The applicant claimed his chronic pain and psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unpersuasive as it contradicted contemporaneous medical records.

Applying the AMA Guides criteria, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not establish chronic pain requiring removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment tasks or a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently 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 Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic back pain, which caused functional impairment, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, but denied other plans for lack of evidence or because they were duplicative.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her chronic pain and psychological injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's examiners, noting that the applicant's experts failed to explain how her pain improved over time and then worsened years later, and that her psychological assessment was conducted by a panel lacking a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist.

As the applicant had exhausted her $3,500 MIG limit, her claims for further medical benefits, an award, and interest were dismissed.

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

The insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 limit, denying two treatment plans for physiotherapy and chiropractic services.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and an aggravated pre-existing shoulder injury warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting a lack of medical evidence supporting chronic pain and a significant gap in treatment.

However, pursuant to s. 40(8) of the Schedule, the disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary up to the remaining MIG limit, plus interest.

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 applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for non-earner benefits, various physiotherapy treatment plans, and assessments for psychology and chronic pain.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, noting the lack of clinical records and the failure of his assessors to address the respondent's medical reports.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, applying the Heath test and finding the applicant had resumed substantially all of his pre-accident activities, including completing his education.

All disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied three treatment plans.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment and a pre-existing condition of pregnancy.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a psychological impairment, giving significant weight to the respondent's psychological assessment and noting the applicant's failure to attend numerous insurer examinations.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that her pregnancy precluded recovery within the MIG.

The applicant was awarded the $305.75 remaining under her MIG limit for one treatment plan, but the other plans and interest were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic services, a home exercise program, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the chiropractic services, home exercise program, and chronic pain assessment were reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator rejected the applicant's argument that the treatment plans were payable due to the respondent's late denial notices, holding that the expenses had not been incurred prior to the notices being delivered.

The psychological assessment was found payable in part, and the claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were minor, she suffered from a psychological impairment (anxiety related to driving) that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved a $2,460.00 psychological assessment but denied an attendant care assessment, finding the applicant was independent in her daily activities.

A claim for an award under O. Reg. 664 for unreasonable delay was also dismissed.

The applicant, who has a pre-existing diagnosis of autism, sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

She claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various medical benefits including occupational therapy, physical therapy, and a chronic pain assessment, as well as an award and interest.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as there was insufficient evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which indicated no objective ongoing accident-related impairments and found the disputed treatment plans were either duplicative or not reasonable and necessary.

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

The central issue was whether her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological injuries, or a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Her evidence regarding chronic pain did not meet the AMA Guides criteria, her psychological symptoms were not formally diagnosed, and there was insufficient evidence that her pre-existing shoulder tear prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, no further benefits, interest, or awards were payable.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, arguing that a pre-existing clavicle fracture was exacerbated, leading to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of functional impairment or disability resulting from chronic pain, noting that he continued to work and travel, and did not meet the criteria under the AMA Guides.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

As the MIG limit had been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied and the application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit, various medical and rehabilitation assessments, a special award, and interest.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidence showed she could perform the majority of her pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits, finding the applicant did not provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the treatment and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and did not suffer from a chronic pain condition that would remove him from the MIG.

As the injuries were minor, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, and the application was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's right wrist impairment pre-dated the accident and was not caused by it.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's claims for a knee brace, chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his sedentary pre-accident employment as a debt collector.

The claim for attendant care benefits was also dismissed as the expenses were not incurred and the applicant was found to be independent with personal care tasks.

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

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

The applicant argued her injuries, including a partial rotator cuff tear and chronic pain syndrome, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the partial rotator cuff tear met the definition of a strain and thus a minor injury under the Schedule.

The Tribunal also rejected the diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome due to a lack of supporting evidence and methodology in the expert report.

As the injuries fell within the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the claims for further medical benefits, examination costs, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing condition and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found no compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Furthermore, surveillance and employment evidence contradicted the applicant's claim of chronic pain, showing he worked 12-hour shifts and engaged in physical activities without apparent discomfort.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various medical benefits.

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 establish entitlement to income replacement benefits, as he returned to work full-time and his business suffered no economic loss.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from psychological impairments, chronic pain syndrome, or post-concussion syndrome that would remove him from the MIG.

Consequently, the application for benefits was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits, medical benefits, transportation expenses, an assessment expense, interest, and a special award.

The arbitrator found that credible psychological and orthopedic evidence established chronic pain and related psychological sequelae, taking the claim outside the Minor Injury Guideline and supporting entitlement to the disputed physiotherapy treatment plans.

Applying the Schedule's pre-104-week test, the arbitrator held that the applicant had a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment and was entitled to weekly income replacement benefits for that period only.

The post-104-week claim failed because the evidence did not prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment.

Transportation and interest were awarded, the in-home assessment expense and special award were denied, and expenses were left to further determination if necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, and various examination expenses.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery from facility-based treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant sustained soft tissue injuries from the accident, the requested physical treatments and examination expenses were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's medical examiner over the applicant's psychologists regarding physical impairments.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Insurer denied several treatment plans and assessments, arguing the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found that the Applicant's psychological and orthopaedic expert reports were tainted by a conflict of interest, as the primary psychologist had a close personal and financial relationship with the Applicant, and other experts relied on her clinic's flawed assessments.

The arbitrator excluded or gave no weight to the Applicant's expert evidence and accepted the Insurer's independent medical examinations.

The arbitrator concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the claims for further benefits.