Dr. Kucher

The applicant sought attendant care benefits of $2,058.90 per month following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

In a partial rehearing, the Licence Appeal Tribunal considered competing occupational therapy assessments regarding the applicant's need for assistance with personal care, meal preparation, and hygiene.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's position that no attendant care was required, finding that the applicant's pain, fatigue, and lack of motivation necessitated assistance.

However, the Tribunal reduced the applicant's claimed hours, finding some requests duplicative or mitigated by approved assistive devices.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits of $522.30 per month from January 30, 2026, ongoing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits and various treatment plans.

The respondent denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the attendant care benefits were incurred or reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the outstanding balances of several partially approved treatment plans, finding the applicant did not meet her burden to establish their reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his chronic pain, psychological impairments, or pre-existing conditions warranted removal from the MIG, noting that his chronic back pain and functional limitations pre-dated the accident and were not exacerbated by it.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life as his pre-accident activities were already severely limited by a prior accident.

All claims for treatment plans, assessments, interest, and an award were dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to funding for psychotherapy, a neuropsychological assessment, and a COGMED assessment/treatment, as these were reasonable and necessary given objective evidence of a traumatic brain injury and ongoing psychological symptoms.

Claims for chiropractic services and a driver evaluation were dismissed.

The Tribunal also held the applicant was barred from pursuing a neurological assessment due to his failure to attend scheduled insurer's examinations without a reasonable explanation.

A claim for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the approved treatment plans.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and the cost of various assessments.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the claimed attendant care benefits were incurred or reasonable and necessary, given her self-reported independence with activities of daily living.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed psychological, chiropractic, and neurological assessments and treatments were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the insurer's examiners.

As no benefits were payable, claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit and various medical benefits, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the accident was minor and the applicant's ongoing complaints were related to pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting that video surveillance and medical assessments contradicted her claims of severe impairment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for medical benefits, finding the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle and sought various statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment under the Schedule, preferring the insurer's expert evidence that the applicant did not suffer a marked psychological impairment.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to non-earner benefits, as his physical injuries caused a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Claims for attendant care, housekeeping, and certain treatment plans were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary, though an occupational therapy assessment was approved.

The claim for a special award was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for assistive devices and laser foot therapy under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary and were related to pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the applicant failed to prove the requested treatments and devices were required due to accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's mobility and balance issues were pre-existing, and the foot numbness was related to prior chemotherapy.

The application was dismissed.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, relying on the applicant's own statements to independent medical examiners regarding his post-accident activities.

The adjudicator also found no medical evidence of an ongoing physical impairment necessitating the claimed physiotherapy.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought entitlement to an income replacement benefit and a medical benefit for chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant was not entitled to the income replacement benefit because he failed to attend properly scheduled insurer's examinations and did not provide a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance.

The claim for chiropractic treatment was also dismissed, as the adjudicator preferred the respondent's expert reports over the applicant's family physician notes, concluding the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.