Dr. Lori Feigelson

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, various chiropractic treatment plans, an orthopaedic assessment, interest, and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical evidence indicated she continued to substantially engage in her pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet her burden to prove the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently 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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of chronic pain, psychological injury, or a pre-existing condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, as the applicant did not provide evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits and various treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work, and a psychological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim for attendant care, finding the applicant failed to prove an ongoing need.

However, the Tribunal approved several of the treatment plans, either in whole or in part, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also granted an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, ordering the respondent to pay $600 (15% of the denied occupational therapy benefits) because it unreasonably maintained its denial despite its own assessor recommending the treatment.

Preliminary motions regarding page limits and striking portions of the applicant's reply submissions were also addressed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a $9,024.34 treatment plan for a chronic pain program following a motor vehicle accident, along with interest and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator noted the applicant's case was hampered by a lack of contemporaneous evidence and a failure to properly pinpoint evidence within the submitted medical reports as required by the case conference report and order.

Consequently, the claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG, citing inconsistent self-reporting to assessors.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for social work, general practitioner, and psychological assessments because the insurer's denial notices contained boilerplate language and failed to comply with the medical reasons requirement under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing wrist condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting the pre-existing condition did not prevent maximal recovery and the applicant failed to meet the criteria for chronic pain or psychological impairment.

The disputed treatment plans were approved only up to the remaining $3,500 MIG limit, and the claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain.

The medical evidence, including insurer's examinations, demonstrated that the applicant had functional abilities to complete most activities of daily living.

The application was dismissed.