Dr. Leon Steiner

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic services, a home exercise program, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the chiropractic services, home exercise program, and chronic pain assessment were reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator rejected the applicant's argument that the treatment plans were payable due to the respondent's late denial notices, holding that the expenses had not been incurred prior to the notices being delivered.

The psychological assessment was found payable in part, and the claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant claimed pre-existing psychological and physical conditions warranted removal from the MIG and sought a non-earner benefit.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of pre-existing conditions or impairments that would remove her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which was based on in-person assessments, over the applicant's expert evidence, which was based on telephone interviews and lacked corroboration in clinical records.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit, finding she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in two separate motor vehicle accidents and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that his physical and psychological injuries, as well as pre-existing conditions, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide persuasive medical evidence, such as diagnoses from qualified practitioners, to prove his injuries extended beyond the MIG definition.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's physiatrists, who concluded the injuries were soft tissue in nature and treatable within the MIG.

As the applicant had exhausted the MIG limits for both accidents, the claims for outstanding treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The applicant claimed entitlement to expenses for vision therapy and eyeglasses, physiotherapy services, and the unapproved balance of a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the visual impairments were caused by the accident, relying on the respondent's optometry assessment.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's physiatry assessments, which concluded that maximum therapeutic benefit had been reached, over the applicant's lack of responding reports regarding physical injuries.

Finally, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to justify the additional cost claimed for the psychological assessment beyond what the respondent had already approved.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit and medical benefits for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal also found the proposed medical benefits were not reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and contradictory expert reports.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) $3,500 limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing physical conditions, including chronic back pain and degenerative disc disease, prevented her from achieving maximal medical recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the Tribunal approved four physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary for ongoing pain relief.

However, the Tribunal dismissed claims for psychological services and a mental health assessment, finding that the applicant's psychological issues were primarily related to pre-existing workplace problems and that she had successfully returned to driving.

Interest was awarded on the overdue physiotherapy payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, acupuncture, and assistive devices following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to reimbursement for physiotherapy expenses incurred before submitting a treatment plan.

For two subsequent treatment plans, the Tribunal approved shockwave therapy at a reduced rate but dismissed claims for acupuncture, orthotics, and other assistive devices, finding them not reasonable and necessary given the applicant's ongoing participation in a chronic pain program and lack of evidence supporting their efficacy.

The applicant's claim for costs was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit.

The applicant argued that pre-existing shoulder and psychological issues, along with accident-related chronic pain and psychological impairment, removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims, noting inconsistencies between the applicant's self-reports, his family physician's records, and the insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit, which the respondent had already substantially paid.

The disputed treatment plans were therefore not payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical and rehabilitation benefits, and costs of examinations.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application due to the applicant's failure to comply with production orders and attend an insurer's examination, which the Tribunal dismissed.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, noting significant credibility issues and a failure to produce relevant financial and employment records.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for medical benefits and examination costs, preferring the evidence of the respondent's assessors over the applicant's evidence.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 treatment cap had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that his injuries were not minor due to chronic pain, neurological injury, post-concussive syndrome, pre-existing conditions, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's s. 44 psychological assessment over the applicant's evidence and rejected the applicant's argument that cultural differences invalidated the respondent's assessment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of non-earner benefits and four treatment plans.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's claim for non-earner benefits was time-barred under section 56(1) of the Schedule, as the application was filed more than five years after the respondent's clear refusal to pay.

Regarding the treatment plans, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant failed to prove his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator placed little weight on the applicant's psychological assessment conducted nearly five years post-accident, noting a lack of contemporaneous complaints to his family physician.

As the applicant had exhausted the $3,500 MIG cap, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant, a 72-year-old retiree, sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim based on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal applied the Heath test to compare the applicant's pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant experienced some pain and psychological distress, she failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to participate in her pre-accident activities.

The application for non-earner benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, housekeeping, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's chronic pain and psychological impairments were not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator applied the material contribution test and found the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing conditions, causing permanent impairment to her right shoulder and psychological disorders.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits, certain medical and assessment costs, and interest, but her claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed due to insufficient credible evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for rehabilitation and care services following a 1993 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's pervasive physical, cognitive, and psychological conditions were not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims, finding she failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident materially contributed to her impairments.

The arbitrator noted a complete absence of pre-accident medical records, relying solely on the applicant's unreliable self-reporting, and drew an adverse inference from her failure to call pre-accident treating physicians or lay witnesses to corroborate her pre-accident health and functional abilities.