Dr. Michael Hanna

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet her burden to prove chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG.

However, because the respondent failed to provide compliant denial notices within the required 10-day period under section 38(8) of the Schedule, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the incurred treatment plans from the 11th day after submission until the date the defective notices were cured.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a personal support worker, suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment and was entitled to pre-104 week IRBs.

However, the applicant was not entitled to post-104 week IRBs as she was currently employed as a Lab Patient Technician, demonstrating she did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for the proposed treatment plans and assessments, finding insufficient corroborating medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as there was no evidence the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed benefits.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had pre-existing lower back and knee conditions, she failed to provide compelling medical evidence that these conditions precluded her recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment or psychological injury.

The application 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 her injuries fell outside the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that her mild scoliosis and arthritic pain were caused or exacerbated by the accident to the level of chronic pain with functional impairment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no objective medical evidence of a psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

As the injuries did not remove the applicant from the MIG, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and special award were denied.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including treatment plans for occupational therapy, chiropractic, massage, psychological services, assistive devices, and multiple assessments.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits based on Insurer's Examination reports.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the majority of the treatment plans and assistive devices were reasonable and necessary, often due to a lack of evidence justifying the prolonged nature of treatment or the specific costs exceeding the Professional Services Guideline.

The Tribunal also found that an MRI was reasonably available through OHIP.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to a functional cognitive assessment and a chronic pain assessment, finding sufficient grounds to warrant further investigation based on the applicant's consistent complaints and psychometric testing.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the insurer's reliance on its assessors was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, an attendant care assessment, and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as there was insufficient evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports which indicated the applicant had returned to his activities of daily living and sustained only minor injuries.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB), medical benefits, and an award under s. 10 of O. Reg 664.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a personal support worker and Lyft driver, relying on the respondent's medical assessments and the applicant's family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal denied the claims for IRB, psychological services, a chronic pain assessment, and a driving reintegration assessment.

However, the Tribunal partially approved a treatment plan for a chronic pain program, awarding $2,346.70 for physical therapy and an SI belt based on a neutral OHIP-funded assessment.

The claim for a s. 10 award was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment and assessment plans for psychological and chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, who concluded that the applicant suffered only minor physical strains and did not meet the criteria for a psychological diagnosis, over the applicant's self-reported complaints and the reports of his treating practitioners.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG, claiming accident-related chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a psychological impairment, noting that chiropractors lack the expertise to diagnose such conditions.

The Tribunal also preferred the insurer's examination report, which indicated the applicant had returned to his pre-accident work and daily routine, over the treating chiropractor's reports.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit.

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 a pre-existing neck fracture, chronic pain, and psychological impairment, and also claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG, and lacked objective evidence of accident-related chronic pain or psychological impairment.

Relying on the respondent's independent medical examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The Tribunal denied the non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal approved two physiotherapy treatment plans and a psychotherapy treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

A chronic pain treatment plan was denied as the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain with functional limitations.

The Tribunal also ordered a 15% award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by ignoring its own assessor's diagnosis and inflexibly dismissing a treatment plan over a signature issue.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the treatment plans for chiropractic services, an orthopedic assessment, and chronic pain treatment, as he failed to demonstrate they were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a chronic pain assessment to investigate his ongoing pain complaints, along with interest on overdue benefits.

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

The respondent denied the claims, relying on section 44 assessments which found no significant functional or psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reported limitations inconsistent with physical examinations and preferred the respondent's comprehensive psychological assessment over the applicant's provisional phone-based diagnosis.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG and dismissed the claims for additional treatment plans and interest.

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

The Tribunal applied the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain and found the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient functional impairment, as he maintained his pre-accident routines, work, and social life.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment, noting the applicant's own self-reporting denied significant anxiety or depression.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for a special award were 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 a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support any of the grounds for removal.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was limited to the remaining $24.49 balance of the MIG limit.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that disputes for two plans were statute-barred.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from disputing the orthopaedic and physiotherapy plans because she failed to apply within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule, and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to establish that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claim for psychological services was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services and an occupational therapy assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant suffered an intervening second accident and failed to prove the disputed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish causation, noting medical evidence of a second accident and a lack of documentation connecting the current complaints to the initial accident.

The Tribunal also found the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on independent medical assessments.

The application was dismissed.

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, 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.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to psychological impairments, pre-existing sciatica and scoliosis, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's assessments which aligned with the family physician's clinical notes.

The application for treatment plans, interest, and a special award was dismissed.