Dr. Gladshteyn

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

The respondent argued the applicant was barred from proceeding on certain issues due to non-attendance at insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant had a reasonable explanation for non-attendance due to the respondent's failure to provide previous examination reports.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant returned to her pre-accident part-time work level.

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to attendant care benefits of $612.75 per month, but they were not payable as they had not been incurred.

Several treatment plans for assessments and assistive devices were partially approved, while claims for psychological treatment, an award, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically funding for a neuropsychological catastrophic assessment, a neurocognitive catastrophic assessment, and document support expenses.

The adjudicator found that the neuropsychological assessment was reasonable and necessary because the medical evidence raised a question regarding whether the applicant's impairments stemmed from the accident, entitling the applicant to an expert opinion on the issue.

However, the adjudicator denied funding for the neurocognitive assessment, finding it would overlap with the neuropsychological assessment, and denied the document support expenses for lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant was awarded $2,260.00 for the neuropsychological assessment and HST.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the denial of treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and multiple assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy and assessments were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of clinical notes and preferring the respondent's medical assessments.

However, the Tribunal granted the outstanding balance for psychotherapy services, finding the proposed 1.5-hour sessions reasonable as recommended by the assessing psychologist.

Interest was awarded on the overdue psychotherapy benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and various treatment plans.

The respondent denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in her self-reporting and preferring the evidence of the respondent's assessors.

The Tribunal also found the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed, and no award or costs were granted.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a medical rehabilitation benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and that the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the stringent test for a non-earner benefit, largely due to a lack of detailed comparison between her pre- and post-accident functioning and the impact of her pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal also found the proposed treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, preferring the insurer's medical evidence that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and that ongoing pain was related to a subsequent 2015 accident or a pre-existing 2005 accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's persistent pain was causally linked to the 2013 accident.

The tribunal approved the treatment plans for physiotherapy and chiropractic services as reasonable and necessary, and partially approved the disputed balance for a psychological assessment.

The claims for acupuncture and an orthotics assessment were dismissed for lacking sufficient evidentiary connection to the accident-related injuries.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.