Dr. Rabinovich

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to two treatment plans for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy services.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by declining to consider clinical notes and records, and erred in fact and law by finding the benefits of the therapy unclear.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness because the applicant failed to comply with a Case Conference Report and Order requiring pinpoint references to evidence.

The Tribunal also found no error of law or fact, noting that the hearing adjudicator properly weighed the medical evidence, including a section 44 physiatry assessment, and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-litigate the weight assigned to evidence.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, attendant care benefits, an award, and interest following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and that pre-existing injuries from a 2016 accident were the primary cause of his ongoing complaints.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and failure to submit a required Form 1 for attendant care benefits.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries (soft tissue sprains/strains) and failed to prove that pre-existing conditions, neurological issues, psychological injuries, or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, denying the claim for IRBs.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting a lack of evidence of chronic pain syndrome or functional impairment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a diabetic patient, brought a medical malpractice action against her family physician after requiring a below-knee amputation due to an undiagnosed neuropathic fracture (Charcot foot).

The plaintiff alleged the physician breached the standard of care by failing to order timely imaging or refer her to an orthopedic specialist.

The court found that the physician's treatment did not fall below the standard of care, noting that the condition was rare and not detected by other specialists who examined the plaintiff during the same period.

Although the court concluded that timely imaging would likely have saved the leg, the action was dismissed because the standard of care was not breached.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment of $3,225.80 for a chiropractic treatment plan.

The insurer denied the claim based on an insurer's examination.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting that neither the insurer's orthopaedic surgeon nor the applicant's own orthopaedic assessor supported the recommended manipulation and exercise.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic and massage therapy, and the cost of an orthopaedic assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the majority of the claimed benefits, as she failed to provide sufficient evidence that the treatments and assessment were reasonable and necessary, and there was no objective evidence of an orthopaedic injury.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $200.00 balance for a previously partially approved physiotherapy treatment plan, plus interest, because the respondent had initially approved it before Minor Injury Guideline funds were exhausted.