Dr. Sherri MacKay

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her chronic pain, physical injuries, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional limitations, noting she did not meet the AMA Guides criteria and continued to work full-time.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical and psychological experts, who found no objective evidence of non-minor physical or psychological impairments and noted symptom over-reporting.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, ordering that any remaining funds within that limit be payable for incurred treatments, with interest.

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

The respondent insurer denied treatment plans for physical therapy and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing back condition prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG, or that she sustained an accident-related psychological impairment outside the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were 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 Tribunal found that the applicant suffered only soft-tissue physical injuries and failed to establish accident-related chronic pain or psychological impairments that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's expert reports, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

Consequently, the applicant's claims for treatment plans exceeding the $3,500 MIG limit and for interest were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit and a medical benefit for a concussion assessment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistent reporting of post-accident functional deficits and a lack of evidence regarding pre-accident activities.

The adjudicator also denied the concussion assessment, drawing a negative inference from the applicant's failure to produce records from a prior OHIP-funded neurological assessment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, with no entitlement to a section 10 award or interest.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate, which overturned an Arbitrator's finding that he suffered a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had previously been involved in two accidents in 2002.

The Director's Delegate found that the applicant was already catastrophically impaired before the 2013 accident and that the Arbitrator erred by applying the material contribution test instead of the 'but for' test.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding the Director's Delegate's decision unreasonable because it relied on an unestablished fact that the applicant was already catastrophically impaired.

The Court also held that the Arbitrator's use of the material contribution test was appropriate in circumstances involving multiple accidents where it is impossible to determine which accident caused the impairment.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2013 and sought statutory accident benefits from the Insurer, claiming he suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The Applicant had a history of severe pre-existing psychological and physical impairments from prior accidents in 2002.

The Insurer denied the catastrophic impairment designation and various medical benefits, arguing that any impairment was due to the pre-existing conditions.

The arbitrator found that the 2013 accident materially contributed to the Applicant's psychiatric condition, worsening his impairment to a Class 4 marked impairment in activities of daily living.

The arbitrator concluded the Applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment and awarded the disputed medical benefits and examination costs, finding them reasonable and necessary for pain relief and assessment.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but the Insurer was ordered to pay the Applicant's arbitration expenses and interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, but the insurer denied further payments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been reached.

The applicant argued that his injuries were not predominantly minor due to psychological impairments, physical injuries including chronic pain, and pre-existing conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a psychological impairment, a non-minor physical injury, or a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed medical benefits and assessments.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominately minor injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition or psychological impairment that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The application for benefits was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was also denied.

The Applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and medical/rehabilitation expenses following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant did not meet the test for pre-104 week IRBs (substantial inability to perform essential tasks of employment) or post-104 week IRBs (complete inability to engage in suitable employment), noting she had returned to work for a period, completed nursing programs, and cared for four children.

Claims for the cost of a Disability Certificate and a Psycho-Vocational Assessment were also dismissed for failing to meet the statutory requirements for reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.