Dr. Schwartz

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a concussion and psychological impairment, as well as entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not support a concussion or psychological impairment, keeping the applicant within the MIG and denying the treatment plans.

Although the applicant failed to meet the substantive test for IRBs, the Tribunal awarded IRBs from February 27, 2023, to April 14, 2023, because the insurer failed to respond to the disability certificate within the required 10 business days under s. 36(4) of the Schedule.

Claims for an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) and a medical benefit for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the NEB on the basis that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and denied the medical benefit as not reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator found that the applicant was not entitled to the NEB, as she had successfully returned to school and secured full-time employment post-accident, demonstrating an ability to engage in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

However, the adjudicator found the proposed chiropractic treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary for pain relief, noting that the applicant's symptoms had improved with similar past treatment.

The medical benefit was granted with interest.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $400 per week following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological and physical impairments prevented him from performing his essential tasks as an AutoCAD technician.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant returned to work immediately, was terminated for being a poor fit, and lacked objective medical evidence of disability.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous, objective medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment tasks during the disputed period.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant sought a medical and rehabilitation benefit of $14,804.51 for a multidisciplinary chronic pain program following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the insurer's initial notices of denial were defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule because they lacked medical reasons and failed to include the required Insurer Examination reports.

Consequently, the insurer was liable to pay for any treatment incurred between the date the notice was due and the date the defect was cured.

However, on the substantive issue, the adjudicator concluded that the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery, returned to full-time work, and showed no ongoing musculoskeletal or psychological impairments.

Claims for an award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and limited the cost of a psychological assessment to the remainder of the MIG limit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in fact by preferring one psychological report over another and erred in law by approving the assessment without removing him from the MIG.

The Vice-Chair denied the request, finding no significant errors of fact or law, as the Tribunal correctly assessed the medical evidence and logically concluded that approving an assessment does not automatically remove an applicant from the MIG.

The applicant was struck by a minivan and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, an in-home assessment, and an orthopaedic assessment.

The respondent initially denied the treatment plans with defective notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, but later provided proper notice with IE reports.

The Tribunal found that none of the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on the applicant's family doctor's records and the respondent's IE physician.

However, because of the initially defective notice, the respondent was ordered to pay for any physiotherapy costs incurred between the 11th business day after the plan was submitted and the date proper notice was given.

The claims for the assessments and a special award were dismissed.

The accused was charged with assaulting her 8-year-old son with a metal rod between May 8 and May 14, 2016.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the child's testimony, expert medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries, and the father's account of the child's disclosure.

The child's evidence was fraught with inconsistencies, exaggerations, and fabrications regarding various incidents and allegations.

The medical expert testified that the linear bruising pattern was highly suspicious for inflicted injury and inconsistent with a bicycle accident.

The accused testified that the injuries resulted from the child falling off a bicycle with a loose helmet.

The court found that while someone had clearly beaten the child with a linear object, the child's testimony was so unreliable and inconsistent that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The accused was acquitted.