Dr. R. Zabieliauskas

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, rejecting his chiropractor's diagnoses of chronic pain and concussion as outside the practitioner's expertise.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's physiatry assessment that the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters complied with the notice requirements under the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were minor, his psychological impairments, including an adjustment disorder and depression, removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal granted the treatment plans for a psychological assessment and psychological services.

However, the claims for a non-earner benefit, physiotherapy, and chiropractic treatments were dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life or that the physical treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG, noting a lack of supporting medical evidence and relying on uncontradicted insurer's examination reports.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claim of psychological impairment, placing no weight on a pre-screening report based solely on self-reporting.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

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

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were minor soft tissue strains, his psychological impairment, specifically a diagnosed driving phobia, removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant continued to work full-time as a welder and failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks.

Claims for chiropractic treatment were denied, but the Tribunal awarded costs for a psychological assessment, accident-related medication, and an ambulance expense, along with interest.

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

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

The Tribunal found significant credibility issues with the applicant, noting inconsistencies between his self-reporting, tax returns, and surveillance evidence.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, who found no objective evidence of radiculopathy, psychological impairment, chronic pain, or concussion.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, which had been exhausted.

All claims for benefits, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and that she failed to establish any pre-existing conditions or psychological impairments that would remove her from the MIG.

As the $3,500 funding limit for minor injuries had been exhausted, the claims for the disputed treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

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 Tribunal found that the Applicant's injuries, which included an exacerbation of pre-existing psychological issues and ongoing pain, fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay for chiropractic and psychological treatment plans, but denied a chronic pain assessment plan.

The Applicant was also awarded income replacement benefits for specific periods when she was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment as an esthetician.

Claims for an award under Regulation 664 were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, noting the absence of any documented pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery.

The Tribunal accepted the insurer's expert evidence over the applicant's psychological assessment, concluding that the disputed treatment plans and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent.

The respondent terminated the IRBs on September 2, 2016, following insurer examinations.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal on May 1, 2019, nearly eight months after the two-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal found the termination letter was a clear and unequivocal denial.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, an unreasonable length of delay, and significant prejudice to the respondent, despite acknowledging some merit to the appeal.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, noting she returned to work post-accident and was terminated for performance issues.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant had no functional impairments preventing her from working.

The claims for IRBs, treatment plans, and assessments were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's diagnosed psychological injury (Adjustment Disorder) removed them from the MIG, despite the applicant's reported disinterest in psychological treatment.

While the Tribunal approved the psychological assessment and treatment plans, it denied the physiotherapy, assistive devices, and chronic pain plans, finding them not reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay an award of $1,110.95 under O. Reg. 664 for unreasonably withholding the psychological benefits by misinterpreting the Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including medical/rehabilitation benefits and income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated treatment payments and income replacement benefits based on medical assessments.

At arbitration, the tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for physiotherapy treatment up to the date the applicant received the Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) reports, at the rates charged by the clinic.

However, the tribunal dismissed the claim for ongoing income replacement benefits, finding that the medical evidence, including psychiatric and orthopaedic assessments, did not establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a sewing machine operator.