Dr. Michael Hanna

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits.

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing injuries from a prior accident and chronic pain exempted him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's prior injuries had resolved before the subject accident and that he did not suffer from chronic pain causing functional impairment.

Consequently, the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving his injuries fell outside the MIG, and the application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a truck's mirror while riding her bicycle and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a concussion, which falls outside the MIG, based on consistent reporting of symptoms and elevated SACT-2 scores.

The Tribunal also determined that the disputed physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's accident-related impairments.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and the cost of a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant was barred from pursuing the chronic pain assessment due to her failure to attend section 44 insurer examinations without a valid reason.

The claims for non-earner and attendant care benefits were dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life or that the attendant care expenses were incurred, with the adjudicator preferring the respondent's medical evidence and noting inconsistencies in the applicant's self-reporting and treating physician's records.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and that ongoing pain was related to a subsequent 2015 accident or a pre-existing 2005 accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's persistent pain was causally linked to the 2013 accident.

The tribunal approved the treatment plans for physiotherapy and chiropractic services as reasonable and necessary, and partially approved the disputed balance for a psychological assessment.

The claims for acupuncture and an orthotics assessment were dismissed for lacking sufficient evidentiary connection to the accident-related injuries.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant, a 12-year-old, was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under s. 3(2)(d)(i) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule based on Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 9 or less.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant did not sustain a brain impairment and that the low GCS scores were invalid because they were confounded by medication and intubation, or recorded incorrectly.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a concussion, which qualifies as a brain impairment.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Liu, the Tribunal held that the GCS criteria is a legal test, not a medical one, and declined to read in modifiers excluding scores affected by medication or intubation.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's expert evidence attempting to invalidate the recorded scores, concluding the applicant met the criteria for catastrophic impairment.