Dr. Michael Angel

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including multiple treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological, optometric, and chiropractic services, as well as attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that the majority of the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal granted entitlement only to 16 instances of travel costs for a massage therapist, noting the applicant's inability to attend in-facility treatment at the time.

The claims for attendant care benefits and other treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant was awarded interest on the overdue travel costs.

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including multiple treatment plans and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her onus to prove that the majority of the treatment plans and the attendant care benefits were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,013.20 for occupational services because the respondent's denial notice failed to provide sufficient medical reasons as required by section 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for a section 10 award and the cost of an OCF-3 were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB) and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports which concluded she suffered only soft-tissue injuries.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRB, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment or a complete inability to engage in any employment.

The applicant was injured in a 1994 motor vehicle accident and sought a supervisory level of attendant care benefits (ACB) and several treatment plans after reopening her claim in 2015.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing a lack of causation and relying on insurer's examinations that recommended minimal care.

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from conversion disorder causing unpredictable, debilitating tremors, necessitating 24/7 supervisory care for her safety.

The Tribunal awarded the maximum $3,000 monthly ACB, past ACB, and all disputed treatment plans.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered a 50% special award against the respondent under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer's prolonged reliance on a baseless causation argument to deny benefits was excessive, stubborn, and unreasonable.