Dr. Galit Kleiner

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome and a mild traumatic brain injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's expert medical evidence was not corroborated by the clinical notes and records of her family physician.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet her burden to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, and dismissed the application.

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) and the limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, as he did not provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition or a psychological impairment.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide compliant notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule for several of the denied treatment plans.

As a result, the respondent was ordered to pay for the treatment plans incurred after the 11th business day following their submission, up until compliant notices were issued, along with applicable interest.

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 Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests for chronic pain and psychological assessments, as well as chiropractic and massage treatment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

A psychological treatment plan was partially approved, while a duplicative psychotherapy plan was denied.

The Tribunal declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the respondent reasonably relied on its assessors' opinions, but awarded interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied seven of eight disputed treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in weighing medical evidence, particularly by focusing on inconsistencies in her self-reporting, and failed to properly apply s. 38(8) of the Schedule regarding the insurer's denial letters.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate arguments and re-weigh evidence already considered at the initial hearing.

The Tribunal concluded that the adjudicator made no error of law or fact, nor any breach of procedural fairness, that would warrant reconsideration.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and numerous treatment and assessment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, relying on the respondent's medical assessments which found no residual physical or neurological impairments preventing his return to work.

The adjudicator also denied all disputed treatment plans, finding that several were not entered into evidence, while others included unpayable expenses such as personal protective equipment (PPE) and unauthorized transportation costs.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer suspended the IRBs after the applicant failed to attend a scheduled orthopaedic insurer's examination (IE).

The applicant argued the IE was not reasonably necessary and sought payment of the withheld IRBs, an award, and interest.

The Tribunal found that the requested orthopaedic IE was reasonably necessary given new medical evidence (an MRI showing an annular tear) and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance.

Consequently, the insurer was not required to pay IRBs for the period of non-compliance.

However, the Tribunal awarded the applicant $250 in costs due to the insurer's unreasonable and bad faith conduct in evading service of a summons for its adjuster.

The insurer's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his soft tissue injuries and headaches prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities, including camping, hunting, fishing, and volunteering.

The respondent denied the benefits based on insurer examinations.

The Tribunal applied the Heath framework and found the applicant credible, noting that his pre-existing conditions made him more susceptible to functional impairment from the accident.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the respondent's medical expert who claimed the applicant could perform all pre-accident activities, as the expert failed to list those activities or account for the pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life and awarded non-earner benefits and interest, but dismissed the claim for a special award under Regulation 664.