Dr. Ralph Lubbers

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2012 motor vehicle accident, claiming a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder under Criterion 8 of the Schedule.

The respondent denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's expert evidence unpersuasive, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's self-reporting regarding his work history, social activities, and medical history.

Preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered only mild to moderate impairments and did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for a psychological assessment, chronic pain assessment, and physiotherapy, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, relying on the respondent's s. 44 assessors and noting a lack of compelling medical evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment.

Although the respondent breached the 10-day response requirement under s. 38(8) for the physiotherapy treatment plan, no amounts were payable as the treatment was not incurred during the delay.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied.

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 applicant claimed chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, finding the applicant did not have chronic pain with a functional impairment or a psychological disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and treatable within the MIG, dismissing the claims for chiropractic services, interest, and an award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8, as her psychological impairments significantly impeded useful functioning in concentration, persistence, and pace.

The Tribunal awarded post-104 income replacement benefits and partial attendant care benefits, but denied the disputed treatment plans as the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological assessment report unreliable as its authorship was unclear and its severe findings were uncorroborated by contemporaneous medical records.

The Tribunal also noted insufficient evidence of chronic pain impacting function.

Concluding the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, the Tribunal denied the disputed psychological assessment as not reasonable and necessary, and found no interest payable.

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

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

The applicant claimed pre-existing psychological and physical conditions warranted removal from the MIG and sought a non-earner benefit.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of pre-existing conditions or impairments that would remove her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which was based on in-person assessments, over the applicant's expert evidence, which was based on telephone interviews and lacked corroboration in clinical records.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit, finding she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries should be excluded from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing neck issues or depression prevented him from reaching maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which was supported by the family doctor's records showing the applicant was weaning off psychiatric medication.

The Tribunal also found insufficient objective medical evidence to support a diagnosis of chronic pain.

As the injuries fell within the MIG and the funding limits were exhausted, the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's psychological impairments pre-dated the accident.

The Tribunal found that the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing condition, resulting in a marked class 4 impairment in her adaption to the workplace.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was catastrophically impaired and awarded attendant care benefits of $931.57 per month, along with partial entitlement to claimed medical, rehabilitation, and examination expenses.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian, sustaining a fractured toe.

He sought statutory accident benefits for psychological treatment, orthotics, a chronic pain assessment, and a physiatry assessment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the orthotics and physiatry assessment to be reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's ongoing altered gait and need for custom footwear.

The claims for psychological treatment and a chronic pain assessment were dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the applicant's disinterest in further psychological care.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's initial denial notices for two plans were deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, making the insurer liable for services incurred during the period of deficiency, but declined to order an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664.

The applicant, an Uber driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed entitlement to post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The insurer terminated IRBs on the basis that the applicant could return to suitable employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, due to the synergistic impact of his physical injuries and psychological impairments, including chronic pain and depression.

The Tribunal ordered ongoing IRBs at $200 per week plus interest, but dismissed the applicant's claims for a special award and costs, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable or in bad faith.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision that found her motor vehicle accident injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and dismissed her claims for medical benefits.

She argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by ignoring late-filed MRI results, erred in law by not finding the insurer improperly denied a treatment plan, and erred in fact regarding chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the applicant was given the opportunity to present the MRI evidence, which ultimately did not establish a pre-existing condition or link to the accident.

While the adjudicator acknowledged an error in failing to address the insurer's denial under s. 38 of the Schedule, she concluded the outcome would not have changed because the insurer's request for a s. 44 examination was reasonable given the lack of medical documentation.

The adjudicator's findings on chronic pain and psychological impairments were upheld as proper weighings of the evidence.

The applicant was struck by an SUV while riding a bicycle and subsequently developed severe psychological and emotional issues, including panic attacks and difficulty swallowing.

She sought $2,260 for a psychological assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing it was unnecessary given her recent psychiatric treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the assessment reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's symptoms surfaced post-accident and persisted for years.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the cost of the assessment plus interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for two treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule: $3,558.72 for psychological services and $2,772.32 for assistive devices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed both claims.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the psychological services were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's independent examination report.

The claim for assistive devices was also dismissed as the applicant failed to prove the disputed amount was reasonable and necessary beyond the modified amount already paid by the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Zhen Ling Yan, to attend defence psychological, neurological, and physiatry assessments in a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant required leave under Rule 48.04(1) as the action was set down for trial.

The Master found leave was not required, distinguishing between setting an action down for trial and consenting to it being placed on a trial list under Rule 48.06(1).

The Master further found the assessments necessary for trial fairness, given the plaintiff's claims of serious injuries and expert reports.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant was involved in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, housekeeping, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's chronic pain and psychological impairments were not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator applied the material contribution test and found the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing conditions, causing permanent impairment to her right shoulder and psychological disorders.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits, certain medical and assessment costs, and interest, but her claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed due to insufficient credible evidence.