Lyndy Goldlust

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a minor parking lot collision.

The respondent denied a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in his testimony and a lack of corroborating medical evidence.

The Tribunal also found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG, as he did not demonstrate any pre-existing condition warranting removal.

The disputed treatment plans were denied as they proposed treatment beyond the MIG limits.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the evidence of the respondent's independent medical examiners over the applicant's assessors.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as his pain was manageable and did not practically prevent him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, having previously been deemed to have sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The respondent argued the applicant was statute-barred from disputing the denial of attendant care benefits because he failed to do so within the two-year limitation period.

Applying the discoverability principles from Tomec, the Tribunal found the limitation period did not apply because the applicant could not have successfully disputed the denial until he had evidence of his catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal partially granted the applicant's claims for treatment plans, including physiotherapy, psychological treatment, and catastrophic assessments, while denying mileage expenses for service providers.

The Tribunal also awarded attendant care benefits at reduced monthly amounts for specific periods, finding the applicant did not require 24/7 supervision.

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 was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits (ACB) and a special award from her insurer.

The insurer had previously conceded catastrophic impairment and entitlement to some benefits but disputed the quantum of ACB and the special award.

The arbitrator found the applicant's occupational therapist's evidence to be reasonable and holistic, awarding ACB of $1,728.19 and $2,593.67 per month for the respective periods.

The arbitrator also found the insurer's conduct in relying on flawed assessments and ignoring cognitive issues to be unreasonable, thereby meeting the threshold for a special award.

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 applicants, a husband and wife, were injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from their insurer.

The insurer denied various claims for medical benefits, attendant care, and housekeeping.

At arbitration, the arbitrator awarded both applicants partial medical benefits for chiropractic treatment, finding the treatment reasonable and necessary given their chronic symptoms.

Claims for psychological counselling were denied due to a lack of objective evidence of improvement.

The wife was awarded attendant care and housekeeping benefits for a limited period based on in-home assessments by an occupational therapist.

The husband's claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed as he was found capable of performing his pre-accident tasks.

The insurer was ordered to pay interest on the overdue benefits.

The applicant, a 62-year-old homemaker with a history of pre-existing depression and anxiety, was injured in a pedestrian knockdown.

She sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, attendant care, housekeeping, prescription medication, and costs of examinations.

The arbitrator found that the accident significantly exacerbated her psychological condition, profoundly compromising her ability to engage in rewarding pre-accident activities such as babysitting, reading, and taking long walks.

Applying a qualitative approach to the non-earner benefit test, the arbitrator concluded she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life and awarded ongoing non-earner benefits and prescription medication costs.

Claims for attendant care and housekeeping were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The cost of a neurological assessment was allowed, but an orthopaedic assessment was denied as it did not address accident benefits.

A claim for a special award was also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them, claiming he could return to his pre-accident employment.

The parties disputed the physical demands of his pre-accident job as a folding wall installer and service coordinator.

The arbitrator found the job involved medium to occasionally heavy physical demands.

Relying on medical and functional capacity evidence, the arbitrator concluded the applicant remained disabled until he completed a functional restoration program on April 8, 1994.

The insurer was ordered to pay arrears of weekly income benefits totaling $12,167.94, plus interest, and supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses.