Dr. Sandhu

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological condition (depression and vehicular anxiety), which removed him from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the chiropractic treatment plans, finding them not reasonable and necessary as the applicant had reached maximum therapeutic benefit and lacked corroborating objective medical evidence for physical impairments.

Claims for interest and a section 10 award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and several treatment plans for psychological, chiropractic, and chronic pain assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain, neuropathic symptomatology, or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits as the applicant provided no submissions or evidence to support a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

All claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for an income replacement benefit, attendant care, and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant alleged the Tribunal violated procedural fairness, made errors of law and fact, heard false evidence, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the Tribunal's procedural rulings or hearing management.

While acknowledging minor factual errors in the original decision, the adjudicator concluded they were inconsequential and would not have changed the outcome regarding causation of the applicant's physical and psychological impairments.

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

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss or stay the application because the applicant failed to attend insurer examinations related to a catastrophic impairment determination.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding the missed examinations were irrelevant to the specific treatment plans currently in dispute.

On the substantive issues, the adjudicator approved a functional oculo-visual assessment, one course of chiropractic treatment, and expenses for medical marijuana and CBD oil, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

The remaining treatment plans, including a chronic pain assessment, a second vision therapy assessment, and further chiropractic treatment, were denied for lack of supporting evidence or because they were premature or redundant.

The applicant's claim for a special award was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing arthritis, cervical spine degeneration, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition documented prior to the accident that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed because he had resumed his normal activities of daily living and 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, including income replacement benefits, medical benefits for PRP therapy, and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical impairments, specifically severe osteoarthritis in his hips, and his psychological impairments were not caused by the accident but were pre-existing or related to his termination from employment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer examination assessors over the applicant's experts, noting the applicant's lack of credibility and his experts' failure to review pre-accident medical records.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not subject to the MIG due to a pre-existing medical condition involving a loose screw in a surgically implanted plate in his arm, which was exacerbated by the accident and prevented recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal awarded the outstanding $200 for a partially approved physiotherapy plan but denied the remaining treatment plans for physical rehabilitation and psychological services, finding insufficient evidence that they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought payment for a chiropractic treatment plan in the amount of $2,574.53 following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's consistent reporting of pain and positive responses to previous treatment, preferring the treating medical documentation over the insurer's section 44 assessor.

The applicant's claim for a special award under section 10 of O. Reg 664 was dismissed, as the insurer's conduct was not found to be excessive or imprudent.

The respondent's request for costs, based on allegations that the applicant submitted a backdated Disability Certificate, was also dismissed because the applicant reasonably withdrew the issue prior to the hearing without causing prejudice.

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

The respondent denied claims for non-earner benefits and various medical, psychological, and physiotherapy 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 prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting she returned to full-time work and her self-reporting was inconsistent.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's physical injuries fell within the MIG and rejected her claim of a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's expert evidence which demonstrated significant symptom exaggeration and failed validity testing.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

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

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support removal, noting the applicant's injuries were primarily sprains and strains, and relied on s. 44 assessments that found no objective impairments or psychological diagnoses warranting treatment beyond the MIG.

The application for a psychological treatment plan and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident essential tasks as a security guard due to a knee injury.

The respondent insurer terminated the benefits based on an insurer's examination concluding the knee issues were not causally related to the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating an inability to perform the essential tasks of prolonged sitting and walking during the disputed period, noting he had engaged in sedentary work and later took a physically demanding job.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment as a general contractor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's right rotator cuff tear was a pre-existing condition, not caused by the accident.

Due to significant inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding his return to work and prior medical history, the Tribunal found his self-reports lacked credibility.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks, and dismissed the application for IRBs and interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and occupational therapy.

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

The applicant argued she was removed from the MIG due to a partial rotator cuff tear, right arm radiculopathy, and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from radiculopathy or an accident-related psychological impairment that would remove her from the MIG.

As the injuries were predominantly minor and the funding limit was exhausted, the claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law regarding the applicant's shoulder pain, participation in treatment, and functionality.

The Vice-Chair found that while the Tribunal did err in attributing the applicant's shoulder pain to the accident and in its analysis of his functionality, these errors would not have changed the ultimate decision.

The medical evidence, including reports from the respondent's own assessor, supported a finding of chronic pain in the applicant's neck and lower back that negatively affected his ability to work.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.