Dr. Pradeep Alexander

The applicant sought post-104-week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a severe right ankle fracture.

The respondent terminated benefits, arguing the applicant could work in alternative sedentary roles such as a cashier or telemarketer.

The Tribunal applied the complete inability test and found the proposed alternative occupations were not reasonably suitable due to the applicant's physical limitations, lack of computer skills, and the substantial retraining that would be required.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the income replacement benefits with interest, but declined to order an award as the applicant provided no submissions on that issue.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of two physiotherapy treatment plans and a portion of a psychological treatment plan.

The Tribunal found the physiotherapy plans were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the insurer's examination assessors over the applicant's medical reports, which contained inconsistencies regarding pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal approved the disputed psychological treatment for observation and monitoring, finding it integral to the approved psychotherapy.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed, while interest was granted on the overdue psychological benefits.

The applicant was injured in a head-on motor vehicle collision, sustaining a severe ankle fracture that developed into progressive post-traumatic arthritis.

He sought post-104 income replacement benefits, funding for three treatment plans, and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to post-104 income replacement benefits because he had successfully retrained and was working as a real estate agent, failing to meet the "complete inability" test.

However, the Tribunal approved the disputed treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary to manage the applicant's chronic pain and progressive arthritis.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a special award of $1,211.40 under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the respondent's repeated delays in responding to treatment plans and incorrect demands for repayment constituted excessive and imprudent behavior.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages arising from a car collision.

The court found the defendant negligent and that his negligence caused certain injuries to the plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff's injuries, primarily cervical and lumbar strain exacerbating pre-existing chronic pain, along with some generalized anxiety and headaches, were found not to meet the statutory threshold for recovery of general damages or health care expenses under the Insurance Act.

The court determined that the impairments were not permanent or serious enough to substantially interfere with most of the plaintiff's usual activities of daily living, especially considering her significant pre-existing health issues and inconsistent participation in recommended treatments.

Consequently, the defendant's threshold motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical assessments following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the chronic pain and physiatry assessments were reasonably required due to consistent medical evidence of ongoing ankle pain and the risk of progressive osteoarthritis.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for work site, psychological, attendant care, and function and impairment assessments, finding insufficient evidence to support their necessity, particularly given the applicant's independence in self-care and lack of documented psychological symptoms prior to 2014.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments for the approved assessments.