Dr. Michael West

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming $1,212.63 for psychological services and $6,194.88 for physiotherapy services.

The respondent partially denied the psychological services based on the Professional Services Guideline hourly rates and denied the physiotherapy services on the basis that the applicant had achieved maximal medical recovery.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for both claims, as she provided no submissions regarding the disputed hourly rates and no contemporaneous medical evidence to support the need for further physiotherapy.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought accident benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, claiming removal was warranted due to a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that her pre-existing mechanical back pain prevented recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no psychological impairment or chronic pain resulting from the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were denied, and claims for a special award and interest were dismissed.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment, relying on an orthopedic assessment.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the burden of proof, assigning more weight to the insurer's examinations which found normal physical limits and no functional impairment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant returned to school and managed job responsibilities, failing to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting chronic pain or psychological conditions and giving limited weight to a late expert report.

As the MIG limit applied, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain caused by the accident, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for an orthopaedic assessment and a physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments, but the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was denied as the insurer's conduct was not excessively imprudent or stubborn.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500, which had been exhausted.

The applicant failed to establish chronic pain or a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal denied the disputed physiotherapy treatment plan.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to income replacement benefits from November 6, 2020, to May 16, 2021, as she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment during that period.

Claims for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG, relying on the AMA Guides and the respondent's psychological assessment.

The applicant was denied funding for a physiotherapy treatment plan as the MIG limit was exhausted.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to income replacement benefits for a closed period from the date of the accident until she returned to full-time work.

Claims for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 were dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue income replacement benefits.

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

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

The applicant claimed to have suffered a finger fracture and psychological impairments that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the finger fracture was caused by the accident and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no clinically significant psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological assessment, and orthopaedic assessment were denied as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) and four treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical impairments did not meet the threshold for an IRB, his accident-related psychological impairments, specifically driving anxiety and a specific phobia, caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a forklift driver.

The Tribunal awarded the IRB and interest on overdue payments, but denied the treatment plans as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought payment for various treatment plans, including chiropractic services, a brain SPECT scan, medical services, and physiotherapy, following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examination over the applicant's medical reports, noting the lack of physical examinations or detailed explanations of rehabilitative benefits in the applicant's evidence.

Furthermore, the treatment plans themselves were not entered into evidence.

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

The respondent denied the benefits 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 chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of functional limitations inconsistent with his treating physician's clinical notes and gave little weight to his expert's psychological diagnosis.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for treatment plans, assessments, interest, and a section 10 award.

This ruling addresses the plaintiffs' motion for leave to call more than three medical experts in a personal injury trial, as permitted under Section 12 of the Evidence Act.

The court reviewed the proposed experts for both plaintiffs, Kenisha Desmond and Shian Henry, and found significant overlap and duplication in their anticipated testimony, particularly among medical specialists.

Applying the criteria for granting leave and emphasizing the court's gatekeeping function to prevent unnecessary trial length and disproportionate costs, the judge granted leave to call only one expert from each identified group of duplicative specialists for both plaintiffs, while allowing economic and occupational therapy experts.

The plaintiff brought an undefended action for damages following a trip and fall at the side entrance of the defendants' house, which operated as a dental office.

The court accepted expert evidence that the step was negligently constructed and in disrepair, causing the plaintiff to fracture her metatarsal and develop chronic pain syndrome.

The defendants, who were noted in default, were found jointly and severally liable for $67,980 in total damages, plus $20,000 in costs.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought a Chronic Pain Assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

The respondent insurer denied the benefit, arguing the applicant's ongoing pain was related to pre-existing conditions and post-accident activities rather than the collision.

The Tribunal found that the accident caused a significant exacerbation of the applicant's pre-existing back pain, satisfying the 'but for' test for causation.

The Tribunal concluded the Chronic Pain Assessment was reasonable and necessary, ordering the respondent to pay the $2,314.26 cost plus interest.

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

The respondent insurer determined her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the AMA Guides criteria and found the applicant failed to prove her pain adversely affected her well-being, noting she had returned to full-time work, resumed regular exercise, and did not use prescription pain medication.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries remained within the MIG and the proposed chronic pain assessment was not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a chronic pain assessment and a neurological assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that either assessment was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain and lacked objective medical evidence supporting the need for a neurological assessment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a waitress and usher.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including reports from an orthopaedic surgeon and a chiropractor, persuasive in establishing her functional limitations due to a fractured wrist, shoulder strain, and back pain.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the insurer's assessments, noting they were incomplete and failed to account for pain during testing.

The applicant was awarded IRBs of $315.27 per week for the disputed period, plus interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries, including chronic pain and psychological impairment, removed her from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome that caused functional impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, and since the $3,500 limit had been exhausted, no further medical benefits or assessments were payable.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming two treatment plans for physiotherapy (Pilates and massage therapy) and one for an occupational therapy assessment.

The adjudicator found the physiotherapy treatment plans reasonable and necessary to alleviate pain and improve function, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating and assessing practitioners over the insurer's examination assessor.

However, the hourly rate for the Pilates instructor was reduced to the unregulated provider rate, and the second plan was subject to deduction for available collateral benefits.

The claim for an occupational therapy assessment was dismissed as the adjudicator found it was not reasonable and necessary, relying on a recent comprehensive functional capacity evaluation.

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

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the claimed benefits exceeded the $3,500 limit.

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, psychological injuries, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including expert reports, to be contradictory and unsupported by the objective medical records.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor and dismissed the application, including claims for an award under Regulation 664.