Dr. Grigory Karmy

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a chronic pain assessment and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, but interest on overdue payments was granted.

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

The respondent insurer denied benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit and alleged the applicant was barred from receiving Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) due to a material misrepresentation regarding the use of his vehicle for ride-sharing.

The Tribunal found the respondent failed to prove the vehicle was used for ride-sharing, so the applicant was not barred from IRB and the respondent was not entitled to repayment of previously paid IRB.

However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the respondent's medical experts over the applicant's expert due to a lack of objective evidence.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed medical and attendant care benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied treatment plans for chronic pain and psychological assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the chronic pain and psychological assessments, plus interest, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, as the respondent had relied on its section 44 assessors.

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

The insurer denied several 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 applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairment, pre-existing conditions, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting a lack of psychological complaints to her family doctor for over two years post-accident and placing greater weight on the insurer's psychological assessment which included validity testing.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions (Crohn's disease and knee pain), chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's expert evidence.

The applicant was found to remain within the MIG and was entitled to the disputed treatment plans only up to the remaining $2,570.75 of the $3,500 MIG limit.

The respondent's request for costs was denied for failing to provide particulars.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a chronic pain treatment program, a neurological examination, and a psychological examination.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and had no ongoing impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's functional abilities, normal gait, and lack of reliance on pain medication undermined the need for the chronic pain program.

Furthermore, previous assessments had already concluded the applicant suffered no neurological or psychological impairments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain, exacerbation of pre-existing neck and shoulder conditions, and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain, lacked compelling evidence of exacerbated pre-existing conditions, and preferred the respondent's psychiatric assessment over the applicant's psychological report.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, and since the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for further treatment plans and assessments was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish accident-related psychological impairments or chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical assessments which showed limited functional impairment.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), subject to a $3,500 limit.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that her pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's expert reports regarding psychological impairments and chronic pain, finding them inconsistent with other medical evidence and lacking in establishing causation.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, all claims for treatment, assessments, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident in 2016.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological symptoms warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries, relying on insurer examination reports that found no objective evidence of ongoing accident-related impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition sufficient to remove her from the MIG.

The application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and assessments 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 while the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's neck, right forearm, and left shoulder impairments (excluding a partial thickness tear), the applicant failed to prove that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims of chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairment, finding that she did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain and that her self-reported limitations were inconsistent with her return to work and medical records.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed benefits, interest, and award were denied.

The applicant sought entitlement to numerous treatment plans for physical and psychological therapy, assistive devices, and assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the majority of the treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, largely due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence and inconsistencies in the expert reports provided.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to translation services, a chronic pain assessment, and an attendant care assessment.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a $250 special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 for unreasonably withholding funding for the applicant's attendant care assessment while funding its own.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed multiple treatment plans for physical and psychological therapies, attendant care assessments, and assistive devices.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to partial payment for several treatment plans, including massage, acupuncture, physiotherapy, and psychological treatment, as well as attendant care assessments.

The Tribunal also awarded a $450 special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer unreasonably denied the psychological components of a treatment plan without addressing them in its denial or submissions.

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 applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, noting a lack of ongoing medical treatment or complaints in the clinical records.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended she suffered from chronic pain syndrome and should not be confined to the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ongoing back pain and hand injury did not rise to the level of chronic pain syndrome or cause functional impairment.

Consequently, the applicant was held to be subject to the MIG, and the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and assessments were deemed not payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a chronic pain assessment, chiropractic treatment, and psychological services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the chronic pain assessment was incurred before the treatment plan was submitted, barring the claim.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to prove the chiropractic and psychological treatments were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's independent medical examination evidence.

The respondent's request for costs due to the applicant's failure to produce extended health care documents was denied, as no pecuniary prejudice was demonstrated.

The application was dismissed.

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 applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including expert reports, unreliable and inconsistent with his family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, concluding the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted treatment beyond the MIG.

As the MIG limits were nearly exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied and the application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical benefits, and cost of examinations.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant had returned to work and suffered only minor injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to IRBs up to June 2018, but made no order for payment as the applicant failed to provide post-accident income information.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was entitled to various medical benefits, including physiotherapy, psychological services, shockwave therapy, and a chronic pain program, as the evidence demonstrated she suffered from chronic pain caused by the accident.

The claims for cost of examinations and a Regulation 664 award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that one claim was statute-barred.

The Tribunal found that the claim for $2,387.89 was statute-barred as it was filed beyond the two-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, as he failed to prove that his chronic pain or psychological issues removed him from the MIG, especially given an intervening workplace head injury.

However, the Tribunal found a treatment plan for $2,317.34 to be reasonable and necessary, payable up to the remaining balance of the $3,500 MIG limit.

The applicant's request for costs was dismissed.

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

The central issue was whether her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological injuries, or a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Her evidence regarding chronic pain did not meet the AMA Guides criteria, her psychological symptoms were not formally diagnosed, and there was insufficient evidence that her pre-existing shoulder tear prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, no further benefits, interest, or awards were payable.