Dr. Oleg Safir

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).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, a meniscal tear, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was already exhausted, the claims for additional physiotherapy, psychological services, and a social work assessment were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to attendant care, medical, and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $65,000 non-catastrophic limit.

The Tribunal assessed her impairments under criteria 7 (whole person impairment) and 8 (mental or behavioural impairment) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator found the applicant's combined whole person impairment was 42%, falling short of the 55% threshold, and that she did not suffer a marked impairment in three or more areas of function.

Consequently, the application for benefits and a section 10 award was dismissed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's motion for punitive damages for lack of jurisdiction and awarded $2,000 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant bringing frivolous and vexatious motions alleging criminal conduct and contempt.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming costs for a psychological assessment, a chronic pain assessment, and a chronic pain program.

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

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's experts, noting a lack of corroborative evidence for chronic pain syndrome and failure to demonstrate functional impairment under the AMA Guides.

The applicant sought 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) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his physical injuries, alleged psychological impairments, pre-existing conditions, or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and a Regulation 664 award were dismissed.

The applicant, a convenience store owner and cashier, sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer terminated the benefits after eight months.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

Medical evidence, including insurer examinations, indicated she retained reasonable physical function and her essential tasks were primarily administrative or light physical work.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic care and a physiatry assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a possible coccyx fracture and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a fracture and noted that the applicant's medical evidence failed to explain how her pain impaired her functioning.

Concluding that the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits had been exhausted, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to IRBs because he had quit his job prior to the accident and did not qualify for Employment Insurance due to misreporting income.

The Tribunal removed the applicant from the MIG based on psychological impairments identified by both the applicant's and respondent's assessors.

However, the Tribunal denied the claims for chiropractic, massage, and acupuncture treatment, as well as an x-ray, finding them not reasonable and necessary or barred by timing rules.

The claim for a psychological assessment was granted.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought income replacement benefits and funding for chronic pain and physiatry assessments from her insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, relying on independent medical examinations that found no physical or psychological contraindications to her return to work.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the assessments, finding them not reasonable and necessary given the lack of objective medical evidence supporting ongoing impairment and the applicant's self-reported improvements and return to work as a personal support worker.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including ongoing non-earner benefits and two physiotherapy treatment plans.

The insurer had paid non-earner benefits for six months but sought to retroactively terminate them, while also denying the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the test for ongoing non-earner benefits after November 2015, given her level of post-accident activity, but refused to retroactively terminate the benefits already paid.

The Tribunal granted the two physiotherapy treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary due to the close connection between the applicant's physical pain and her psychological conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits after a delay caused by an initial application for employment insurance.

The Tribunal found the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay and was not disentitled to benefits.

The Tribunal held the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment due to a neck injury and fractured finger, entitling him to income replacement benefits for the first 104 weeks.

However, he did not meet the complete inability test for post-104 week benefits.

The Tribunal also ordered the insurer to pay several disputed medical and rehabilitation benefits, noting the insurer had incorrectly adjusted the claim under the Minor Injury Guideline despite the applicant's fractured finger.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits, including chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans, following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's orthopaedic assessments which found no objective evidence of accident-related impairment.

The applicant's claim for a psychological assessment was also dismissed as a duplication of service.

Furthermore, the adjudicator ordered the applicant to repay $8,583.12 in income replacement benefits that were overpaid due to an insurer error, as the applicant failed to establish any exception to the repayment obligation under section 52 of the Schedule.

Claims for a section 10 award and costs were dismissed.

The self-represented applicant sought payment for a chiropractic treatment plan in the amount of $4,493.71 following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed she suffered from whiplash, fibromyalgia, and 'windy poison'.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence linking her fibromyalgia and 'windy poison' to the accident.

While whiplash was verified as a direct result of the accident, the applicant provided no objective medical opinion supporting that chiropractic treatment would improve her condition, whereas the respondent's orthopaedic assessment concluded treatment would not help.

The application was dismissed as the treatment plan was not shown to be reasonable and necessary.