Dr. Jaroszynski

The applicant sought a Non-Earner Benefit and payment for various treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's ongoing pain was caused by pre-existing degenerative disc disease rather than the accident.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that MRI results and independent medical examinations confirmed the symptoms were degenerative.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, including claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

She also claimed entitlement to non-earner benefits and two treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish that her pre-existing conditions prevented recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, concluding the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries and no diagnoseable psychological impairment.

The claims for non-earner benefits and treatment plans outside the MIG limit were dismissed.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit and several treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The applicant failed to comply with a case conference order requiring pinpoint references in submissions, failed to submit a disability certificate for the income replacement benefit, and failed to submit the treatment plans in dispute.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's section 44 assessments, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and did not require the disputed treatments.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired and not entitled to a catastrophic impairment assessment.

She argued the adjudicator ignored evidence from orthopedic experts regarding causation and failed to apply the correct legal test for the assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact.

The adjudicator had properly weighed the evidence, preferring the respondent's expert who found the impairments were caused by degenerative changes rather than the motor vehicle accident, and correctly applied the test requiring the applicant to show a catastrophic impairment finding was probable.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2000 motor vehicle accident, sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that treatment plans for massage therapy, physiotherapy, aqua therapy, and a hot tub were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's chronic pain.

However, claims for a Costco membership, private pool therapy, a rehabilitation support worker, and occupational therapy were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the insurer did not unreasonably withhold or delay benefits by relying on its s. 44 assessments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of treatment plans for assistive devices, a neuropsychological assessment, and physiotherapy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a robot vacuum, miscellaneous assistive devices, and occupational therapy, but denied the costs associated with a hot tub.

The Tribunal also approved a psychological assessment and physiotherapy, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a special award of $440 under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 for unreasonably denying the psychological assessment, along with interest on overdue benefits.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 for the respondent's alleged unreasonable withholding of Income Replacement Benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised regarding the adjudicator's assessment of expert evidence and the respondent's conduct were questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The court concluded there was ample evidence to support the adjudicator's factual findings.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits, including chronic pain treatment, an MRI, and orthopaedic and neurological assessments, following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the objective evidence of the insurer's assessors over the applicant's chronic pain specialist, noting the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain syndrome.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying an award for the respondent's alleged unreasonable withholding of income replacement benefits and costs.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in relying on the respondent's expert testimony and failing to consider the applicant's overall condition.

The Tribunal found no material error of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, noting that the respondent appropriately adjusted the claim and reasonably relied on its medical assessors.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying him income replacement benefits and a treatment plan.

He argued the adjudicator misapprehended expert evidence, breached procedural fairness, and made errors of fact and law regarding causation and expert qualifications.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and no breach of procedural fairness, noting the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the case.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed, as the applicant's conduct did not rise to the level of being unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were caused by a subsequent disc herniation rather than the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries from the accident were soft tissue injuries that had substantially healed before the disc herniation occurred.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's orthopaedic surgeon over the applicant's experts, concluding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his physical or psychological impairments were caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed, with no entitlement to benefits, an award, or interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, including funding for chiropractic treatment, a social work assessment, and a neurological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the chiropractic treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's own assessors who acknowledged the applicant's chronic pain and potential benefit from facility-based treatment.

However, the Tribunal denied the social work and neurological assessments, finding them duplicative and unsupported by the medical evidence.

Claims for an award for unreasonably withheld benefits and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying an attendant care benefit and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erroneously decided the attendant care issue after it was withdrawn, relied improperly on hearsay evidence to make adverse credibility findings, and made factual errors regarding medical causation.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration in part, amending the decision to remove the order regarding the attendant care benefit, as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the withdrawn issue.

However, the Vice-Chair upheld the remainder of the decision, finding the evidence was properly considered for the remaining issues, the applicant had waived procedural fairness concerns by consenting to a written hearing, and the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, a medical benefit for psychotherapy, an award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's pre-existing conditions, including fibromyalgia, accounted for her ongoing complaints.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical assessments, which showed functional range of motion and no complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The claim for psychotherapy was also denied as the psychological assessment relied on self-reporting and contradicted pre-accident medical records.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for psychological treatment and a chronic pain program.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain and was entitled to partial payment for both treatment plans.

The rehabilitative components and psychological services were deemed reasonable and necessary, while transportation costs, social work, education elements, and additional progress reports were denied.

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), subjecting him to a $3,500 limit.

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments removed him from the MIG.

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

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor and dismissing the application.

Following a motor vehicle collision, a jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages and $14,000 for past loss of income.

The defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's soft tissue injuries did not meet the verbal threshold under section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence, including surveillance showing the plaintiff conducting fitness sessions, and concluded the plaintiff failed to prove she sustained a permanent impairment of a physical, mental, or psychological function.

The claim for general damages was dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the Insurer, including a declaration of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits, and medical benefits.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered a mental disorder but did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as he did not have a marked impairment in any of the four domains of functioning.

However, the arbitrator concluded that the Applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment and a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited, entitling him to IRBs.

The claims for attendant care benefits, medical benefits, and a special award were dismissed.

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

The Insurer determined that the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and paid the maximum $3,500 limit.

The Applicant argued that her pre-existing injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Arbitrator also found no persuasive evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

As the Insurer had already paid the maximum amount under the MIG, the Applicant's claims for additional medical benefits and examination costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and a determination of catastrophic impairment following a 2008 motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in employment for the IRB claim.

The medical benefit claim was not properly linked to the 2008 accident.

The catastrophic impairment claim failed because the applicant's assessments did not properly account for pre-existing conditions as required by the AMA Guides, and the evidence did not establish a marked impairment resulting directly from the 2008 accident.