Dr. Gofeld

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found that his injuries did not remove him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied his claims for treatment plans and interest.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by excluding a psychological assessment report and erred in law and fact in its interpretation of the MIG, the Schedule, and the evidence regarding his psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate his position and raise new arguments not presented at the initial hearing, and that he failed to establish any errors of law or fact or a breach of procedural fairness.

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

The respondent denied several treatment and assessment plans, including chiropractic services, cognitive devices, a driving reintegration assessment, a chronic pain assessment, and a fitness membership assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's section 44 examination reports which found no objective evidence of impairment and concluded the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain with a functional impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the medical evidence, including assessments from both the applicant and the insurer.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of chronic pain uncompelling, preferring the insurer's assessments which indicated normal range of motion and minor sprain/strain injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain with a functional impairment, remained subject to the MIG, and was therefore not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain assessment and various physiotherapy treatment plans following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the chronic pain assessment was a duplication of previous assessments and therefore not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also denied the physiotherapy claims, noting discrepancies in the treatment times invoiced versus the sign-in sheets, and finding the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for the remaining treatment plan.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, medical benefits, and assessments.

The adjudicator dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant's reduced capacity did not amount to a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the adjudicator granted the disputed treatment and assessment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary given the applicant's pre-existing conditions that were exacerbated by the accident.

The adjudicator also ordered a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer unreasonably delayed removing the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline despite its own assessor's opinion supporting the exacerbation of pre-existing impairments.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which were denied by the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the insurer's reliance on assessments limited to the MIG was flawed.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for chiropractic services, a neurological assessment, a driving evaluation, a chronic pain assessment, and a biopsychosocial assessment as reasonable and necessary.

Claims for cognitive devices, ergonomic devices, and an MRI screening were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence or failure to demonstrate necessity over OHIP-covered services.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits and a catastrophic impairment (CAT) designation following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the accident contributed to the applicant's psychological impairment, the applicant's self-reports were not credible due to significant inconsistencies regarding his pre-accident health and functional status.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning and therefore did not meet the CAT threshold.

All claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care, and medical benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable, necessary, or incurred.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend defence medical examinations with a neuropsychologist and a psychiatrist, in addition to an agreed-upon physiatry examination.

The plaintiff, who claimed damages for physical, cognitive, and emotional injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident, argued she should only have to attend one of the two disputed examinations.

The court granted the motion, finding that trial fairness required the defendant to have the opportunity to respond to the plaintiff's evidence regarding her physical, emotional, and cognitive impairments.

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various medical and rehabilitation benefits, and the cost of assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he continued to engage in many pre-accident activities and was employed at the time of the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, a functional ultrasound, a chronic pain assessment, and a cognitive assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary given the soft-tissue nature of the injuries.

The respondent was ordered to pay $460.00 for the outstanding cost of a psychological assessment, but claims for an award and interest were dismissed.