Dr. Marc Mandel

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing ulnar neuropathy would preclude recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of functional impairment from chronic pain or a formal psychological diagnosis.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

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 evidence of physical, psychological, or pre-existing injuries that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, which concluded the applicant sustained minor soft tissue injuries.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest, and the application was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant demonstrated psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The applicant was awarded several physiotherapy treatment plans, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, as well as interest on overdue payments.

However, claims for a non-earner benefit, orthopaedic, neurological, and neuropsychological assessments, and a section 10 award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his pre-existing conditions would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's left knee injury was not accident-related, he did not meet the criteria for chronic pain, and his psychological symptoms were related to interpersonal challenges rather than the accident.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, he was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing their injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof, as the only evidence of psychological impairment was a single note from a family physician stating the applicant 'still has PTSD'.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no objective support for a DSM V diagnosis.

As the injuries fell within the MIG and the remaining limit was negligible, the claims for treatment plans and an award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans and assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed to have suffered a finger fracture and psychological impairments that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the finger fracture was caused by the accident and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no clinically significant psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological assessment, and orthopaedic assessment were denied as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

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) limit of $3,500.

The applicant argued his injuries fell outside the MIG due to psychological impairments, chronic pain, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries (back and shoulder sprains) and failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from an accident-related psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied, and no award for unreasonable delay was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment, and interest.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

As the injuries were predominantly minor and the applicant provided insufficient evidence regarding pre- and post-accident activities, the claims for the non-earner benefit and treatment plans beyond the MIG limit were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, claiming removal from the MIG due to psychological impairment, chronic pain, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a psychological injury, chronic pain with functional limitations, or a pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal held that the applicant remains subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary up to the remaining MIG limit, provided they are incurred.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was 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 applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish pre-existing impairments, accident-related chronic pain with functional limitations, or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain syndrome and a pre-existing condition of osteoarthritis.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including normal neurological results and the applicant's reported functional abilities, did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove that any pre-existing condition precluded maximal recovery within the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied, and no interest or award was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident 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).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairment and chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's expert who conducted a more thorough review of the medical records.

The Tribunal also found that while the applicant experienced chronic pain, she failed to demonstrate an accompanying functional impairment, as she had returned to full-time work and remained independent in her daily activities.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the funding limit was exhausted, the claims for treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that his psychological impairments and chronic pain warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, asserting the injuries were minor and the MIG limits had been exhausted.

As a preliminary issue, the adjudicator struck the applicant's written submissions that exceeded a previously ordered 12-page limit.

On the merits, the adjudicator found insufficient contemporaneous medical evidence to support the applicant's claims of psychological impairment or functional impairment due to chronic pain.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports over the applicant's expert assessments, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor.

Because the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were all denied.

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 compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

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

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for psychological and physical therapy services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to demonstrate that his physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's evidence, noting a lack of objective findings and symptom magnification.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding her injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline limit.

She argued the Tribunal erred by failing to consider a psychological assessment report.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error in not explicitly referencing every piece of evidence.

The Tribunal noted that even if the report had been explicitly analyzed, it would not have changed the conclusion that the applicant's psychological issues were related to the COVID-19 pandemic and job loss, rather than the accident.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant failed to provide written submissions or comply with Tribunal deadlines.

Relying on the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments, the Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the MIG.

The application for treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

Due to the applicant's unreasonable behaviour and bad faith in the proceeding, the Tribunal ordered costs of $1,000 against the applicant.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries warranted treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological issues, and exacerbation of a pre-existing condition.

The insurer denied the disputed treatment plans, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG, preferring the insurer's medical examination reports over the applicant's unsupported treatment plans.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRB) and various treatment plans.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, including a claimed pars defect, and psychological impairments did not warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting the applicant's diagnostic imaging showed no fractures and the psychological assessment relied heavily on self-reporting.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent had already paid the claimed IRB.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits, medical benefits for physiotherapy, and the cost of examinations for mental health and chronic pain assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's expert reports due to their reliance on self-reporting without a Somali interpreter and failure to include signed expert duty acknowledgments.

The respondent's section 44 assessments, which utilized an interpreter and found symptom magnification and minor injuries, were preferred.