Dr. Paul Ranalli

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of various treatment plans, an income replacement benefit (IRB) deficit, and seeking an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the proposed treatment plans for physiotherapy, optometric services, concussion therapy, occupational therapy, and pharmacotherapy were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating specialists over the respondent's independent examiners.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the IRB deficit and the outstanding balance for psychological therapy due to insufficient evidence.

The request for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was also dismissed, as the respondent's conduct did not meet the threshold of being unreasonable.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and payment for vision therapy and chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The applicant argued that the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Schedule, rendering the benefits payable.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided compliant denials and that the applicant failed to establish substantive entitlement to the benefits.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the respondent's medical evidence which aligned with the clinical notes of the treating family physician and ER records.

The Tribunal gave less weight to the applicant's assessors due to inconsistent self-reporting by the applicant.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The respondent denied the benefits and argued the applicant was barred from proceeding with several treatment plans due to her failure to attend scheduled insurer's examinations (IEs).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance and was therefore statute-barred under s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule from proceeding with those claims.

For the remaining treatment plans, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to adduce sufficient objective medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the respondent's IE assessors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic, psychological, and optometric services, as well as prescription expenses.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the psychological services and a portion of the prescription expenses, as the medical evidence supported a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic pain related to the accident.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, chiropractic, and optometric services, preferring the respondent's insurer examinations which found these treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's reliance on its medical experts was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for optometric assessments and services following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans based on an independent medical examination by a neuro-ophthalmologist, who concluded the applicant's vision issues were age-related presbyopia rather than accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and preferred the evidence of the insurer's neuro-ophthalmologist over the applicant's optometrist and physiatrist due to his specialized medical training.

The Tribunal found the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, including attendant care, chiropractic treatment, medication, and multiple assessments.

The Tribunal found that the claims for attendant care and initial chiropractic treatment were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period, and the applicant failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension.

For the remaining substantive claims, the Tribunal concluded the applicant had not met her burden to prove the treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the respondent's medical examiners who opined the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for occupational therapy and assistive devices following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant continued to suffer impairments from the exacerbation of pre-existing degenerative disc disease, she failed to prove that the proposed occupational therapy and assistive devices were reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator relied on the respondent's occupational therapy assessment, which concluded the applicant could perform self-care and had returned to work without the devices.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for a neurological assessment and the disputed balance of a driving evaluation assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the neurological assessment was not reasonable and necessary, as the insurer's examination concluded injuries were soft tissue in nature and the applicant provided no corroborating expert evidence.

For the driving evaluation assessment, the Tribunal allowed the cost of preparation services but denied the costs for mental health counselling (which duplicated an earlier psychological assessment) and the treatment provider's mileage (which is not payable under the Schedule).

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to attend further defence medical examinations with a vascular surgeon and an ophthalmologist in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

The court considered the discretionary authority under s. 105(2) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing additional medical examinations.

The plaintiff had not pleaded vision loss and existing expert evidence suggested the visual impairment was unrelated to the accident, making an ophthalmological examination unnecessary and disproportionate.

However, causation of the plaintiff’s significant leg injuries remained a central issue and an orthopaedic expert had raised the possibility of vascular disease, recommending assessment by a vascular surgeon.

The court held that fairness required allowing the vascular examination but not the ophthalmological assessment.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for nearly four years before the insurer terminated them.

The applicant, a self-employed photographer, sought ongoing weekly income benefits under the post-156 weeks test, as well as supplementary medical, transportation, and housekeeping expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's pre-accident business activity had already declined to a hobby-like level and that he remained capable of engaging in suitable employment, such as marketing his existing photographs or taking less physically demanding ones, despite his ongoing migraine auras and pre-existing spinal degeneration.

The claim for ongoing weekly income benefits was dismissed.

The arbitrator awarded the claimed medication and transportation expenses but dismissed the housekeeping claim as statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.