Dr. G. Dancyger

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

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 she suffered from an accident-related psychological injury or chronic pain condition that would remove her from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied as they fell outside the MIG limit.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, drawing an adverse inference from the Applicant's failure to produce her employment and employment insurance files.

Claims for interest and a section 10 award were also dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found significant credibility issues with the applicant, noting inconsistencies between his self-reporting, tax returns, and surveillance evidence.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, who found no objective evidence of radiculopathy, psychological impairment, chronic pain, or concussion.

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

All claims for benefits, interest, and an award were dismissed.

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

The Respondent denied certain benefits, arguing the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's injuries, which included an exacerbation of pre-existing psychological issues and ongoing pain, fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay for chiropractic and psychological treatment plans, but denied a chronic pain assessment plan.

The Applicant was also awarded income replacement benefits for specific periods when she was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment as an esthetician.

Claims for an award under Regulation 664 were dismissed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft-tissue injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a psychological injury or functional impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found that the insurer complied with the notice requirements under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application for benefits, interest, and an award was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove their psychological and chronic pain symptoms warranted removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish that the disputed treatment and assessment plans were reasonable and necessary, and failed to exhaust collateral benefits for ambulance services.

The application was dismissed.