Dr. Mandel

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and cost of examinations under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claims, initially relying on the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limits, though it later conceded the applicant was removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the requested psychological services and driver reintegration assessment were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the contradictory reports of the insurer's expert.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, an orthopaedic assessment, and a functional abilities evaluation, finding insufficient objective evidence to support them and noting the applicant's own report that physical therapy was no longer helpful.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's reliance on its experts' reports was not unreasonable.

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

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

The applicant argued that her pre-existing lymphadenopathy, psychological impairments, and chronic pain took her out of the MIG.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery.

It also found that the applicant's psychological symptoms did not constitute a severe or extreme impairment.

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's chronic pain evidence, placing little weight on her expert's report due to recent disciplinary findings against him, and preferred the respondent's medical assessment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for assistive devices and psychological treatment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence proving the assistive devices were reasonable and necessary, and failed to submit the psychological treatment plan into evidence to justify the disputed balance.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit for psychological services, arguing her pre-existing depression and anxiety warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefit, relying on a section 44 psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to prove her pre-existing conditions were exacerbated by the accident or prevented maximal medical recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence and concluded the proposed treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

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 she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain syndrome, and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximum medical recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, concluding the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a medical rehabilitation benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and that the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the stringent test for a non-earner benefit, largely due to a lack of detailed comparison between her pre- and post-accident functioning and the impact of her pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal also found the proposed treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, preferring the insurer's medical evidence that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits for a chronic pain assessment and physiotherapy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident 'heavy' employment for the first 104 weeks due to chronic pain and psychological issues, entitling her to IRBs for that period.

However, she failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment after 104 weeks.

The Tribunal also found the proposed chronic pain assessment and physiotherapy treatment plans to be reasonable and necessary, ordering them payable if incurred, along with interest on overdue benefits.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies between her evidence at the hearing and her self-reporting to medical experts.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's expert reports because they relied on her inconsistent narrative and lacked clinical testing details.

The application for arbitration was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.

The respondent suffered a Colles' fracture and underwent closed reduction surgery performed by the appellant emergency room doctor.

The appellant failed to take a post-cast x-ray and failed to inform the respondent of the high risk of displacement and the need for weekly x-rays.

The respondent's wrist did not heal properly, requiring multiple corrective surgeries.

The trial judge found the appellant negligent and awarded $90,000 in general damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the findings of negligence and causation regarding the failure to inform, but found the trial judge erred in assessing general damages by holding the appellant responsible for all consequences of the fracture rather than just the incremental harm caused by the delayed detection of displacement.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing general damages to $30,000.