Dr. Gerry Dancyger

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries, including major depression and adjustment disorder with anxiety, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found the applicant did not meet his burden to prove a psychological impairment, placing less weight on the applicant's psychological assessment due to a lack of objective testing and preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which found no accident-related impairment.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy were not considered, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and denied several treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by relying on the respondent's psychological assessment, which referenced outdated DSM-IV criteria, and by finding the respondent's denial notice compliant with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact, as both parties' assessors referenced DSM-IV criteria and the denial notice provided detailed medical reasons.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish impairments outside the MIG, as his self-reports were not corroborated by his family physician's clinical notes and records.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding balance of one treatment plan due to its failure to provide a compliant notice under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The claims for other treatment plans and an award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied income replacement benefits and several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to income replacement benefits or the disputed treatment plans, as he failed to provide sufficient evidence or submissions to challenge the respondent's section 44 assessments.

Although the respondent failed to respond to one treatment plan within the required 10 business days, no amounts were owing as the treatment had not been incurred.

The claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered claims for occupational therapy, a vocational assessment, and psychological services.

The Tribunal denied the vocational assessment, noting the applicant continued to work as a personal support worker.

The claim for occupational therapy was largely denied, save for a medication docette, as the applicant failed to prove the necessity of the remaining items.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for psychological services, applying the 'but for' test to find the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's psychological impairments, despite subsequent unrelated personal tragedies.

Interest was awarded on the approved benefits.

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 physical injuries were predominantly soft-tissue in nature, supported by normal diagnostic imaging.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claim of psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's in-person psychological assessment over the applicant's telephone-based assessment.

As the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, the disputed treatment plans exceeding the $3,500 limit were not payable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and psychological services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's independent medical examinations, which concluded the applicant suffered only soft tissue injuries and no diagnosable psychological impairment.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for further benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical assessments following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the chronic pain and physiatry assessments were reasonably required due to consistent medical evidence of ongoing ankle pain and the risk of progressive osteoarthritis.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for work site, psychological, attendant care, and function and impairment assessments, finding insufficient evidence to support their necessity, particularly given the applicant's independence in self-care and lack of documented psychological symptoms prior to 2014.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments for the approved assessments.

The applicant was injured in a slip and fall accident while exiting his vehicle and sought statutory accident benefits.

He submitted a treatment plan for psychological assessment and therapy, which the respondent denied based on an insurer's examination finding no diagnosable psychological impairment.

The adjudicator found the treatment plan was neither reasonable nor necessary, noting it duplicated an earlier plan and the applicant's psychologist failed to review relevant medical records or explain why the symptoms were attributed to the first accident despite an intervening second accident.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was also dismissed for failing to provide required particulars.