Dr. Platnick

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's key expert witness, who failed to attend the hearing for cross-examination, citing procedural fairness.

Relying on surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's claims of severe impairment and social isolation, the Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

Consequently, claims for medication expenses beyond the non-catastrophic limit, a special award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and interest following a 2021 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had previously been deemed catastrophically impaired following a 2010 accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the subject accident.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting that the applicant retained sufficient mobility to perform most activities of daily living and that his need for assistance stemmed from his pre-existing injuries and advanced age.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans and expenses 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's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that she failed to establish removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain or psychological impairment.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 psychological assessment over the applicant's section 25 assessment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans and expenses were not payable.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of chronic pain with a functional impairment or a psychological condition caused by the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's independent medical and psychological evaluations, which concluded the injuries were minor and subclinical.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the claims for various treatment plans and assessments were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish that her physical, chronic pain, or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's pre-screening report.

The applicant's claims for medical benefits beyond the MIG limit and for a special award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured while riding a public bus and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, catastrophic impairment assessments, and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, dismissing the claim for non-earner benefits.

However, given the applicant's significant pre-existing conditions and accident-related physical and psychological injuries, the Tribunal found the catastrophic impairment assessments reasonable and necessary, excluding a file review fee.

The Tribunal also approved a neurological assessment and a psychological treatment plan, while dismissing the remaining treatment plans.

The applicant sought a medical benefit for physiotherapy in the amount of $1,899.96 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant reported only short-term relief from previous treatment.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's claim for costs was also denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy and costs of examination for orthopaedic, attendant care, and psychological assessments.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries had resolved or were related to a subsequent accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal gave significant weight to the insurer's examination reports and noted the applicant's lack of candor regarding a second motor vehicle accident.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic treatment.

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 should remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent him from achieving maximum medical recovery under the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the disputed treatment plans were found not reasonable or necessary.

The applicants were injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer capped their medical benefits under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and terminated the husband's income replacement benefits (IRB).

The arbitrator found that both applicants developed chronic pain, which is an aberrant physiology not contemplated by the MIG, thus removing them from the $3,500 cap.

However, the claims for specific medical benefits were dismissed for lack of evidence proving they were reasonable and necessary.

The husband was awarded his claimed IRB as his injuries caused a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment as a truck driver.

Expenses were awarded to the applicants.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), transportation expenses, and the cost of a medical assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant had returned to work and did not meet the disability tests.

The arbitrator found the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment for the first 104 weeks and a complete inability to engage in suitable employment thereafter until she commenced a new career.

The arbitrator awarded the IRBs, transportation expenses, and assessment costs.

Furthermore, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay a $10,000 special award because it unreasonably withheld IRBs by failing to have its accountant review updated financial information that would have revealed flaws in its initial denial.

The applicant was injured while riding a public transit bus that braked sharply.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits based on medical examinations indicating she could return to work.

The arbitrator found the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to rebut the insurer's assessments and dismissed the claim for ongoing income replacement benefits.

However, the arbitrator awarded attendant care and housekeeping benefits for a limited period, finding the applicant's evidence of needing such services credible up to the date of a designated assessment centre evaluation.

The insurer was ordered to pay the applicant's arbitration expenses and interest on overdue benefits.