Dr. Michael Aiello

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

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and ineligible for an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB).

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the employment or self-employment criteria for an IRB.

However, the Tribunal removed the applicant from the MIG based on a documented concussion diagnosis from a treating emergency physician, rejecting the insurer's s. 44 assessor who failed to address the hospital records.

The Tribunal approved several treatment plans for occupational therapy, psychological assessment, massage therapy, and social rehabilitation counselling as reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also ordered the insurer to pay for an accounting report used to calculate the IRB claim, noting the Schedule only requires the applicant to be applying for the benefit, not entitled to it.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed because the insurer reasonably relied on a s. 44 assessment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, in-home yoga therapy, assistive devices, and handrails following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's accident-related physical injuries had largely resolved and that her ongoing pain was due to non-accident-related conditions such as arthritis and fibromyalgia.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to link her balance issues and need for assistive devices to the accident.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairments.

The respondent denied further non-earner benefits, massage therapy, and the catastrophic impairment designation.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be an unreliable historian whose evidence was riddled with inconsistencies regarding her pre-accident health and post-accident functioning.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, concluding that the applicant's current physical and psychological impairments were caused by pre-existing conditions and other life stressors, not the accident.

Consequently, the applicant failed to prove she sustained a catastrophic impairment or was entitled to the claimed benefits, special award, or interest.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a medical benefit for physiotherapy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a janitorial cleaner due to physical and psychological impairments, entitling him to pre-104-week IRBs.

However, the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment, and was therefore denied post-104-week IRBs.

The Tribunal also denied the proposed physiotherapy treatment plan, noting the applicant had an unexhausted, previously approved treatment plan and had provided inconsistent evidence regarding the benefits of physiotherapy.