Punita Laurier

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming attendant care benefits of $29.38 per month and $1,394.50 for assistive devices and an education session.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the claimed benefits were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's assessment reports, which indicated the applicant remained independent in his activities of daily living and personal hygiene, over the applicant's reports, which failed to establish a nexus between his impairments and the need for an aide or assistive devices.

Furthermore, the applicant provided no evidence that the attendant care expenses had been incurred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two minor motor vehicle accidents in 2011 and 2012.

He had previously suffered a severe workplace injury in 2002, resulting in chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, largely due to extensive surveillance showing him performing activities he claimed he could not do, and his failure to disclose his pre-existing conditions to his assessors.

Applying the 'but for' test for causation, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant's impairments were solely attributable to his 2002 workplace injury and that he suffered no verifiable decline in function following the motor vehicle accidents.

All claims for non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, medical benefits, and cost of examinations were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including physiotherapy, assistive devices, and costs of examinations for driving anxiety, functional abilities, and chronic pain.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on an orthopedic assessment that placed the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the preponderance of medical evidence, including the applicant's OHIP claims history and clinical notes, supported the reasonableness and necessity of the disputed treatment plans and assessments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimed benefits and interest, but denied the applicant's claim for a special award, finding no evidence of unreasonable delay or withholding.