Dr. Peter Cobrin

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and the fact that the applicant had already received concurrent physical therapies.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial notices complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a psychological impairment, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for psychological and psychiatric assessments, as well as a physiotherapy plan, but denied two chiropractic plans.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments, but the claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's reliance on its medical assessors did not constitute unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits and funding for a multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the attendant care benefits were reasonable and necessary, as insurer's examinations indicated she had returned to her pre-accident functional abilities.

The Tribunal also denied the catastrophic impairment assessment treatment plan, finding insufficient medical evidence to support that it was reasonably possible the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The application was dismissed.

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 $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, as he failed to prove chronic pain with functional impairment.

The applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed because the insurer's denial was compliant and there was no obligation to provide an election of benefits when the applicant was not eligible for multiple specified benefits.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for three chiropractic treatment plans pursuant to s. 38(11) of the Schedule, finding that the insurer's denial notices were insufficiently detailed and failed to comply with s. 38(8).

A claim for a psychological assessment was denied, and the request for an award for unreasonable delay was 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) and that the applicant failed to attend an insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not barred from proceeding because the respondent's notices of examination were defective.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal held the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

The applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit.

However, three treatment plans for chiropractic services were payable because the respondent's denial notices failed to comply with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

A claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, as well as claiming an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for physiotherapy, accepting the insurer's medical examination which found no ongoing physical injuries.

The Tribunal also dismissed two psychotherapy treatment plans because the applicant failed to justify rates exceeding the Professional Services Guideline and session lengths beyond one hour.

However, the Tribunal partially approved a third psychological treatment plan, preferring the treating clinic's recent progress report over the insurer's assessment, but reduced the quantum to align with Guideline rates and one-hour sessions.

The claim for a special award was dismissed due to lack of evidence of unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought entitlement to two psychological treatment plans, a special award, and interest following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the proposed treatment plans were redundant and duplicative of previously funded assessments.

The Tribunal noted a lack of contemporaneous evidence in the family doctor's clinical notes to support the need for further mental health assessments three to four years post-accident.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans 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 that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, noting a lack of ongoing medical treatment or complaints in the clinical records.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

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

The applicant sought accident benefits following a minor rear-end collision.

The insurer denied treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and cannabis medication on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued his injuries fell outside the MIG due to a concussion, chronic back pain, an annular tear, psychological impairment, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support these claims, noting steady improvement in the applicant's condition, intervening events causing back pain flare-ups, and surveillance footage showing the applicant skiing and carrying his child.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and is subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, dismissing the claims for additional medical benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a psychological assessment, chiropractic services, and an occupational therapy in-home assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the physical injuries were pre-existing and the psychological assessment costs were unreasonable.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to prove the claimed psychological assessment costs were reasonable compared to the insurer's examination.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to establish causation for the physical injuries, noting extensive pre-existing conditions and a lack of evidence connecting the requested chiropractic and occupational therapy treatments to the accident.