Dr. Erin Langis

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2020 motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), various treatment plans, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were due to pre-existing degenerative disc disease and a prior 2016 accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her impairments were caused by the subject accident, relying on the respondent's s. 44 assessors who concluded her physical and psychological complaints were not accident-related.

All claims for IRBs, treatment plans, assessments, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also 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 for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing condition from a prior accident, concussion, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support removal from the MIG on any of these grounds.

The medical reports relied upon by the applicant were primarily related to a previous accident and did not establish that the subject accident caused or exacerbated conditions precluding recovery within the MIG.

The application for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic treatment, a chronic pain assessment, a neurological assessment, and a concussion assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examinations and the applicant's own family doctors' clinical notes, which did not corroborate the need for the proposed assessments or treatments.

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 was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The applicant sought removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain but accepted the applicant's psychological impairment, relying on a psychological assessment diagnosing trauma and somatic symptom disorders.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the incurred psychological assessment and proposed psychological treatment, plus interest.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant claimed to have suffered a finger fracture and psychological impairments that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the finger fracture was caused by the accident and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no clinically significant psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological assessment, and orthopaedic assessment were denied as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including psychological assessments, chronic pain assessments, chiropractic services, and a gym membership.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits and argued the applicant was barred from proceeding because she failed to attend a neurology insurer's examination.

The adjudicator found the neurology examination was not reasonably necessary, allowing the application to proceed.

However, the adjudicator dismissed all claims for benefits, finding the applicant failed to meet her onus to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as she did not provide sufficient medical evidence linking her complaints to the accident or showing the goals of the treatment plans could reasonably be met.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and funding for two chiropractic treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits based on insurer examinations which concluded the applicant's impairments were pre-existing and did not result in a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary assessment over the applicant's late-filed psychological report, finding the latter lacked contemporaneous relevance and adequate documentary review.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding the applicant failed to prove entitlement to the non-earner benefit or the disputed treatment plans.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and approval for various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment or a complete inability to engage in any employment.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's expert reports and relying on the applicant's successful completion of a three-month accounting work placement.

The claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest were also dismissed.

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

The core dispute was whether the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a concussion, pre-existing conditions, psychological injuries, or chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish any of these exceptions, noting that diagnoses were either outside the practitioners' scope, based solely on self-reporting, or lacked objective psychometric testing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to provide a detailed comparison of pre- and post-accident activities as required by the Heath test.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against her former employers arising from sexual harassment and an incident where the individual defendant attempted to put a date rape drug in her coffee.

The individual defendant had previously pled guilty to a criminal charge related to the drugging attempt and received an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court awarded the plaintiff $50,000 in general damages and $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage due to ongoing psychological distress.

The claim for punitive damages was dismissed because the criminal sentence was deemed sufficient for retribution and deterrence.