Dr. Shawn Henderson

The applicant sought payment for four physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans, arguing that further facility-based treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatment was reasonable and necessary, as there was insufficient evidence that the goals of treatment, particularly pain relief, were being met to a reasonable degree despite years of consistent physiotherapy.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue injuries falling within the MIG.

While the applicant suffered from major depression and PTSD, the Tribunal concluded these psychological impairments were caused by his difficult experiences as a refugee from Albania, not the accident.

Consequently, the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans based on its examination reports.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's contemporaneous medical records, including psychological assessments and family physician notes, demonstrated that the physical therapies were reasonable and necessary to address her accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the disputed treatment plans and interest on overdue payments, but denied the applicant's request for a special award under O. Reg. 664, finding no evidence of unreasonable conduct by the insurer.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits.

The insurer denied the benefits based on its assessors' reports, which concluded the applicant could return to his pre-accident employment as a heavy labourer.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence and his experts' reports more credible, noting the insurer's assessors lacked complete information and ignored the applicant's chronic pain.

The arbitrator held that the applicant met the test for IRBs both before and after the 104-week mark, as he suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The requested medical benefits were also found to be reasonable and necessary.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the claim for a special award, finding the insurer did not act unreasonably in relying on its medical assessors, despite the flaws in their reports.