Dr. Julie Millard

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 Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain syndrome that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the remaining MIG limit was insufficient to cover the proposed chronic pain assessment, and the assessment was not reasonable and necessary, the claim was dismissed.

No interest was awarded as no benefits were overdue.

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

The respondent insurer paid benefits up to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied further claims.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing her pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological issues warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor, soft tissue injuries and that her pain and psychological complaints were merely clinically associated sequelae.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding the applicant was not entitled to benefits beyond the MIG limit.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for medical treatment, assessments, and other expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address his chronic pain, preferring the evidence of his chronic pain specialist over the insurer's assessor.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for additional psychological services, an orthopedic assessment, a duplicate chronic pain assessment, an accounting report, and prescription expenses, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden for those items.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which was followed by a second accident less than two months later.

The insurer denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and various assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were caused by the first accident, but she failed to prove her psychological injuries were caused by it.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for an impairment assessment and a neurological assessment because its denial notices failed to comply with the medical reasons requirement under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The remaining claims for treatment plans, an award for unreasonable delay, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and medical benefits for psychological services, following a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's independent medical examination reports over the applicant's expert reports, noting that the applicant's experts relied heavily on self-reporting which was contradicted by the applicant's own prior testimony and employment records indicating he was laid off due to a shortage of work rather than disability.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits for chiropractic treatment, and the cost of a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and she did not suffer a substantial or complete inability to work.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding no medical evidence supported the applicant's inability to work.

Insurer examination reports consistently showed no physical or psychological impairments preventing a return to employment.

The adjudicator also found the applicant failed to prove the proposed chiropractic treatments and psychological assessment were reasonable and necessary.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were minor and that she did not have a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the applicant's claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed as the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

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

The Tribunal found that the Minor Injury Guideline did not apply due to the insurer's failure to provide proper notice under subsection 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, the applicant's claims for attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, and chronic pain treatments were dismissed as the expenses were either not incurred or not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for assistive devices and an attendant care assessment due to procedural breaches, and granted a 50% special award under O. Reg. 664 for unreasonably withholding payments.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits based on insurer's examinations which concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the detailed reports of the respondent's assessors over the brief letter from the applicant's family physician.

The Tribunal found the applicant was able to continue his pre-accident activities and dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, interest, and costs.

The applicant sought payment for several medical benefits and assessments following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the proposed physiotherapy and laser spinal decompression treatments were reasonable and necessary, rejecting the insurer's argument that they were merely passive therapies.

The Tribunal also approved a psycho-vocational and functional abilities evaluation, capping the cost at the statutory limit of $2,000 per assessment, and allowed an in-home assessment for attendant care needs despite the 104-week mark having passed, as the applicant might be entitled to future benefits if deemed catastrophically impaired.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought caregiver and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Respondent denied caregiver benefits, arguing the Applicant did not reside with his parents and failed to provide proof of incurred expenses.

The Respondent also denied a rehabilitation benefit for an electric assist motor bicycle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant 'resided with' his parents based on a broad interpretation of the term, considering his intention and continuity of care, despite living 900 metres away.

The Tribunal also accepted cash payments to a former nanny as adequate proof of incurred expenses.

Finally, the Tribunal found the electric assist bicycle was a reasonable and necessary rehabilitation expense to help the Applicant return to his pre-accident cardiovascular activities while minimizing impact on his injuries.

The Applicant was awarded the claimed benefits and interest.