Dr. Igor Wilderman

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

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's soft tissue injuries were minor, she suffered from a chronic pain condition that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal also held the insurer liable to pay for four disputed treatment plans because it failed to provide proper notice under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, the applicant's claims for non-earner benefits and visitor expenses were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant sought a determination that he was catastrophically impaired under section 3(2)(f) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to mental or behavioural disorders following two motor vehicle accidents.

The applicant had significant pre-existing impairments from a 2002 workplace fall, including chronic pain and depression.

The adjudicator found that while the applicant suffered from a pain disorder and depression, his functional limitations were overstated and did not meet the threshold for a marked (Class 4) impairment.

Furthermore, applying the material contribution test, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant's current level of impairment was not materially caused by the motor vehicle accidents, as his condition was essentially the same as before the accidents.

The application for catastrophic impairment was dismissed.

However, the applicant was awarded $1,500 in costs due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct in delaying the closing submissions.

The applicant, who was struck by an automobile while riding a bicycle, sought a medical and rehabilitation benefit of $10,033.92 for a chronic pain program.

The insurer denied the claim based on independent medical examinations suggesting the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery.

The Tribunal found the proposed treatment plan reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors which demonstrated ongoing pain and functional impairment exceeding physical signs of injury.

The appeal was allowed, and the insurer was ordered to pay the benefit with interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's medical evidence did not sufficiently support the need for the specific chiropractic services requested, especially given clinical notes indicating the applicant was golfing regularly and had a normal shoulder.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the Insurer.

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

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and radicular symptoms.

The Arbitrator approved several treatment plans for chronic pain assessment, psychological assessment and treatment, active treatment, and a home assessment, while denying others as duplicative or unnecessary.

The Applicant was also awarded interest on overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

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

The arbitrator found that the applicant's ongoing chronic pain and worsening psychological condition, which interfered with her functioning, removed her from the MIG.

The arbitrator approved treatment plans for physical therapy, psychological assessment and treatment, and chronic pain assessment, but denied several other assessments as premature or unnecessary.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological and physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence for psychological services unreliable due to unexplained contradictions in his self-reporting between his own expert and the insurer's examiner.

The claim for physiotherapy services was dismissed because the applicant failed to submit the disputed treatment plan.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied as it lacked supporting evidence or argument.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $2,000 for psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the applicant's self-reporting to her own experts was inconsistent with her statements during the insurer's examination.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's expert, who concluded that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment requiring formal services.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied as it was unsupported by evidence or argument.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was awarded $7,500 in general damages, the defendants brought a threshold motion.

The court first determined that the threshold motion was moot because the jury's award would be entirely eliminated by the statutory deductible under the Insurance Act, resulting in a net recovery of $0.

In the alternative, the court analyzed the medical evidence and found the plaintiff's credibility to be poor due to significant omissions in her medical history regarding pre-existing conditions like fibromyalgia and depression.

The court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important function caused by the accident.

The motion was dismissed.

The Applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and medical/rehabilitation expenses following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant did not meet the test for pre-104 week IRBs (substantial inability to perform essential tasks of employment) or post-104 week IRBs (complete inability to engage in suitable employment), noting she had returned to work for a period, completed nursing programs, and cared for four children.

Claims for the cost of a Disability Certificate and a Psycho-Vocational Assessment were also dismissed for failing to meet the statutory requirements for reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim based on the expiry of the limitation period.

On the eve of the motion, the defendant abandoned it, and the parties attended a hearing solely to determine costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the motion was unreasonable from the outset because the permanency of her injuries was not discoverable until a later medical report was obtained.

The court found no reason to depart from the presumption under Rule 37.09(3) that the responding party is entitled to costs of an abandoned motion.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no bad faith or egregious conduct by the defendant.

Costs were fixed at $12,500 on a partial indemnity basis.