Dr. Jason Bacchiochi

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries, including chronic pain and whiplash-associated disorder, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the claim, relying on insurer's examinations indicating the injuries were minor soft-tissue strains and the applicant maintained a high level of functionality, working full-time as a dentist.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate his injuries fell outside the MIG or that he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plan for chiropractic services was not payable.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), various treatment plans, an IRB report, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the MIG, dismissing the claims for treatment plans beyond the $3,500 limit.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding insufficient medical evidence to prove a substantial inability to perform essential employment tasks.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,034.00 for an IRB report, finding it reasonable and necessary to calculate the quantum of the claimed benefit, along with applicable interest.

The claim for an award was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing he should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing shoulder condition, chronic pain, and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that a pre-existing condition would preclude maximal medical recovery within the MIG.

Applying the AMA Guides criteria, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer from a chronic pain condition, as medical reports indicated he had returned to full-time work and pre-accident activities without functional impairment.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's psychological assessment, finding no accident-related psychological diagnosis.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, he remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and his claims for further assessments, interest, and an award were dismissed.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological condition or a pre-existing medical condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial notices were compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, except for one which was late but still provided sufficient reasons.

The application was dismissed, and no interest or award was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits (NEBs), medical benefits for physiotherapy, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidence showed a return to work, school, and daily activities.

The Tribunal also held the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, rejecting arguments for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, an alleged lumbar fracture, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The respondent's denial of the treatment plan was found compliant with the Schedule's notice requirements.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing insomnia and mild obstructive sleep apnea, which were exacerbated by the accident, prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG.

The applicant was removed from the MIG and awarded funding for a psychological assessment, psychotherapy services, and a psychiatric assessment at a reduced rate, along with interest on overdue benefits.

One duplicative psychological assessment was denied.

The applicant was involved 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 applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, seeking removal from the MIG due to psychological injuries, specifically PTSD and adjustment disorder, and claiming entitlement to a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's assessor, finding the applicant sustained a psychological injury that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the psychological assessment and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on alleged post-concussion syndrome, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not support a concussion diagnosis, that the applicant failed to demonstrate functional impairment from chronic pain, and that he did not prove an accident-related psychological impairment.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the application for disputed treatment plans and interest was 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) and that disputes for two plans were statute-barred.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from disputing the orthopaedic and physiotherapy plans because she failed to apply within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule, and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to establish that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claim for psychological services was dismissed.

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).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide substantive evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for a psychological assessment and a psychological pre-screening because the insurer failed to provide compliant denial notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule before the expenses were incurred.

The remaining treatment plans were denied as they were not incurred prior to the insurer issuing compliant denial notices.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG, and claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit (NEB) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain, noting that her family physician's records did not support her claims and she had returned to work post-accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claim for NEB as she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and denied the disputed treatment plans and interest.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming that physical and psychological injuries prevented him from working as a self-employed electrician.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The applicant's medical evidence was given little weight as it lacked objective support and did not address his ability to work.

Conversely, the respondent's medical assessments and video surveillance evidence, which showed the applicant performing work-related tasks without apparent difficulty, were accepted.

The application for IRB and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims, asserting the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome under the AMA Guides, noting his ability to work full-time and manage daily activities.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of an accident-related psychological impairment.

As the applicant failed to demonstrate his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, and the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans and assessments were dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to physical and psychological impairments.

The insurer denied the claim based on multidisciplinary insurer's examinations indicating the applicant had resumed most pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal found the insurer's medical evidence more persuasive than the applicant's, noting the applicant's self-reporting to assessors contradicted his claims of complete inability.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's motion to exclude 2018 insurer's examinations, finding the insurer's request reasonable in light of new medical evidence provided by the applicant.

The application for non-earner benefits was dismissed.

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 was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited, entitling him to a post-104 week income replacement benefit.

The Tribunal also determined the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment, as his combined physical, neurocognitive, and mental/behavioural impairments met the 55% whole person impairment threshold under the AMA Guides.

However, the applicant's claims for specific medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed for lack of evidence proving they were reasonable and necessary.