Dr. R. Silverman

The Applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was barred from disputing several treatment plans because she failed to apply within the two-year limitation period, noting the insurer's denials were compliant with the requirements in Smith v. Co-operators.

For the remaining treatment plans, the Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding the Applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating that the proposed multidisciplinary, neurological, physiotherapy, and psychological treatments were reasonable and necessary.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's psychological and musculoskeletal assessments, finding no diagnosable psychological disorder or chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits were exhausted, the application for additional medical benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a medical benefit for an occupational therapy assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistent effort and embellishment during insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's expert reports over the applicant's psychological assessment, which failed to compare pre- and post-accident functioning.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was not entitled to the claimed benefits or interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and medical benefits for psychological and chiropractic treatment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove he suffered from chronic pain syndrome or chronic pain causing functional impairment, thus his injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB because the applicant did not miss any work due to the accident and failed to submit a required disability certificate.

As the minor injury limit was exhausted, the claims for medical benefits, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied portions of treatment plans for chiropractic and physiotherapy, as well as a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a proper denial with medical and other reasons for the first treatment plan, triggering the consequences of s. 38(11) of the Schedule.

For the remaining treatment plan and assessment, the Tribunal preferred the applicant's medical evidence, finding the respondent's independent medical examination contained internal contradictions.

The Tribunal concluded the treatment and assessment were reasonable and necessary, ordering the respondent to pay the disputed amounts plus interest.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain, pre-existing conditions, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries warranted treatment beyond the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought medical benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, claiming a psychological injury and a partial muscle tear.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, including the partial tear, were expressly included within the MIG.

The Tribunal also rejected the psychological injury claim, noting that the applicant's evidence predated the accident and the respondent's psychological assessment found only temporary, resolved symptoms.

The application for additional benefits was dismissed, though the applicant was permitted to use the remaining $129.81 of the MIG limit.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them at the 104-week mark.

The insurer argued the applicant was capable of returning to work, relying on assessments suggesting symptom magnification and a lack of organic basis for his pain.

The arbitrator found the applicant credible and accepted medical evidence that he suffered from chronic pain syndrome, depression, and adjustment disorder as a result of the accident.

The arbitrator concluded that the combination of the applicant's physical and psychological impairments rendered him completely unable to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them on July 9, 1998.

The applicant sought arbitration, claiming ongoing physical and psychological impairments prevented him from returning to his pre-accident employment as a cabinet assembler.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's physical soft tissue injuries had resolved and that he magnified his physical symptoms.

However, the arbitrator accepted that the applicant suffered from depression, anxiety, and pain-focused behavior that disabled him from working.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's failure to attend recommended psychological treatment and exercise hampered his recovery, and that by December 9, 1998, his ongoing inability to work was due to his own choice not to rehabilitate himself.

Income replacement benefits were awarded for the period from July 9, 1998, to December 9, 1998.