Dr. Rubenstein

The applicant sought medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that psychological injuries should remove her from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence diagnosing an adjustment disorder and depressed mood, but found the impairment was on the less severe spectrum and did not cause a loss of functional abilities.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and she should remain subject to the MIG limit.

Claims for psychological services and assessments were denied, while chiropractic services were approved up to the $3,500 limit.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding that his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denying payment for psychological and chiropractic treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to consider his pre-existing back condition and by improperly weighing conflicting psychological evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no significant errors of law or fact.

The adjudicator noted there was insufficient evidence that the pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limits, and found no error in the Tribunal's weighing of the expert psychological reports.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied his claim for an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law regarding his pre-existing conditions, psychological injuries, and inability to work, and sought to introduce new medical evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no significant errors in the original decision and concluding that the new evidence could have been obtained earlier and would not have changed the outcome.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and income replacement benefits (IRB) from the respondent insurer.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and were subject to the $3,500 funding limit, as the applicant failed to prove pre-existing conditions or psychological injuries that would exempt him.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for IRB, finding the applicant did not provide sufficient medical evidence to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a taxi driver.

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

The respondent denied the claims for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that her physical injuries, including a right knee condition, or her alleged psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the claims for additional medical benefits and interest were dismissed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had a pre-existing elbow condition that was exacerbated by the accident, preventing him from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also found the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and a psychological assessment to be reasonable and necessary, ordering the insurer to pay the benefits with interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the 104-week mark, at which point the respondent terminated them.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for ongoing benefits, arguing he suffered a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment due to physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's medical evidence failed to address the more stringent post-104 week test and lacked specific diagnoses.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's expert evidence that the applicant could return to work and had alternative vocational options.

The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for the respondent's psychiatric injury, which developed after the doctor failed to promptly disclose a talar fracture in the respondent's ankle.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that factual causation was established on the 'but for' test, as the respondent would not have suffered the psychiatric harm had the doctor disclosed the fracture.

The Court also found that legal causation was established, as it was reasonably foreseeable that a breach of the doctor-patient trust could cause a recognized psychiatric illness in a person of ordinary fortitude.

The appeal was dismissed, and the damages and costs awards were upheld.