Dr. Michael Hanna

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

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence that further facility-based treatment was beneficial more than six years post-accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence or objective proof that the proposed treatment was reasonable and necessary.

The application for the treatment plan and interest was dismissed.

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

The applicant also claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit and several treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating her injuries were beyond minor, or that a pre-existing condition or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

As the applicant provided no submissions or evidence regarding her inability to work, the claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant also claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a chiropractic treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the insurer's examination report over the applicant's medical evidence, which lacked insight on causation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the IRB claim, finding the applicant failed to establish entitlement after returning to work and failed to prove the claimed quantum based on his actual net income.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer held the applicant within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied claims for non-earner benefits (NEB) and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate chronic pain or a pre-existing condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the test for NEB, as evidence showed he maintained his typical daily routine and full-time employment post-accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence of functional impairment or disability arising from the pain, noting the applicant had returned to work within the expected healing time for soft-tissue injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and she remained subject to the MIG limit, dismissing her claims for 12 chiropractic treatment plans and interest.

Additionally, the Tribunal awarded $150 in costs to the respondent because the applicant acted unreasonably by failing to comply with written hearing deadlines without explanation.

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 claimed chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, finding the applicant did not have chronic pain with a functional impairment or a psychological disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and treatable within the MIG, dismissing the claims for chiropractic services, interest, and an award.

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 various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including natural supplements, medical marijuana, Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy, physiotherapy, psychological services, and a visual assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that medical marijuana was contraindicated due to the applicant's pre-existing conditions, and that PRP therapy was experimental and thus excluded under s. 15(2)(a) of the Schedule.

Relying on independent medical examinations, the Tribunal concluded that the remaining physical and psychological treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

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, a Chinese tourist, was involved in a single-vehicle bus accident in Ontario and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment including a traumatic brain injury and severe psychological impairments.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing her ongoing impairments were related to pre-existing conditions and post-accident falls in China.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she sustained a traumatic brain injury in the accident, attributing her cognitive and physical decline to a probable cerebrovascular event and subsequent falls.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for catastrophic impairment, non-earner benefits, and most medical and rehabilitation benefits.

However, the Tribunal awarded CN ¥159,705 yuan for incurred attendant care services and CN ¥612.32 yuan for specific prescription medications, finding the respondent had sufficient information to adjust those claims and the applicant had proven they were incurred.

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 prove his injuries were more than minor or that a pre-existing condition prevented his maximal medical recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the claims for additional treatment plans, assessments, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment, assistive devices, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found that the chronic pain assessment and assistive devices were not reasonable and necessary, noting significant delays in seeking treatment and a subsequent accident that raised causation issues.

However, the Tribunal granted the psychological services treatment plan, finding it reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence, and noted that the respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons for its partial denial in contravention of s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed as the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of functional impairment from chronic pain and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, concluding she did not suffer a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The respondent denied certain medical 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 impairment.

The Tribunal found no compelling medical evidence that pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome or a psychological diagnosis.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits were exhausted, the application for additional medical benefits, interest, and a Regulation 664 award was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, having previously been found to suffer from chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether several treatment plans for physiotherapy, physical rehabilitation, psychological services, and assistive devices were reasonable and necessary under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that further facility-based treatment, including physiotherapy, physical rehabilitation, acupuncture, and a back support, were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's chronic pain and functionality.

The Tribunal also approved the treatment plan for psychological services, finding a causal link between the applicant's chronic pain and psychological symptoms.

Claims for an orthopaedic mattress, an elbow brace, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the insurer's notices denying two treatment plans for physiotherapy, massage therapy, and assistive devices were deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, rendering them payable.

However, a separate treatment plan for assistive devices was denied as a duplication of services.

The Tribunal also denied the disputed balance of a psychological treatment plan and a proposed orthopaedic assessment, finding the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic treatments, psychological services, a social work assessment, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and denied the chiropractic treatments.

The Tribunal also denied the social work and chronic pain assessments, finding the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome.

However, the Tribunal partially approved one psychological treatment plan, reducing the hourly rate as the services were provided by a social worker rather than a psychologist.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming for dietician services, rehabilitation support worker services, and physiotherapy.

The insurer denied the benefits based on an insurer's examination concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the insurer's medical evidence flawed and accepted the applicant's evidence that accident-related weight gain was a barrier to recovery, granting the dietician and physiotherapy claims.

The claim for a rehabilitation support worker was dismissed as the proposed services were not clearly linked to the expert's recommendations.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought medical and attendant care benefits from the respondent insurer.

The adjudicator denied the claim for attendant care benefits, finding the applicant failed to incur the expenses.

However, the adjudicator granted entitlement to four physiotherapy treatment plans, a psychological treatment plan, a functional impairment assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator also awarded a 20% special award under Regulation 664 regarding the functional impairment assessment, concluding the insurer unreasonably withheld approval by relying on an assessor's unconvincing change of opinion.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and a chronic pain assessment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant proved the reasonableness and necessity of the chiropractic treatment plans and the chronic pain assessment, relying on the applicant's ongoing pain complaints and the recommendations of her treating practitioners and an orthopaedic surgeon.

The Tribunal also addressed procedural issues, excluding a late-filed clinical note but allowing the applicant to file missing treatment plans to ensure a fair adjudication.

The applicant was awarded the disputed benefits with interest, but her claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.