Dr. Soric

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The claim for psychological services was denied as the applicant provided no evidence or submissions.

The claim for physiotherapy was denied because the adjudicator accepted the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and resumed pre-accident sporting activities, finding the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including clinical notes and insurer examination reports, supported that the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the onus of proving chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological diagnosis.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for chiropractic and psychological services, as well as claims for interest and an award, were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his psychological injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator reviewed competing psychological assessments.

The applicant's expert diagnosed an adjustment disorder, while the respondent's expert found no significant symptomology and suspected malingering.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's expert evidence, noting it aligned with the applicant's own reports to other assessors that he was not experiencing emotional difficulties.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to prove a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident where he was a passenger in a vehicle that struck a pole, resulting in a traumatic brain injury.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant was excluded under s. 31(1)(c) of the Schedule because he knew or ought to have known the driver lacked the owner's consent.

The Tribunal found the respondent failed to meet its burden to prove the exclusion applied.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant a non-earner benefit for a closed period, finding he suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life until October 2020.

Claims for housekeeping benefits, a physiotherapy treatment plan, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and other goods and services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the ongoing pain symptoms were driven by unrelated medical issues or pre-existing conditions, specifically obesity.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of progress despite significant prior facility-based treatment.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors over the applicant's treating practitioners.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant argued that a pre-existing knee condition and accident-related chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing condition prevented recovery within the MIG, and preferred the respondent's physiatrist's evidence that the injuries were soft-tissue in nature.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit, finding no evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought payment for various treatment plans for psychological therapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the psychological treatment plans were funded at the appropriate rate for a psychotherapist, rather than a psychologist.

The Tribunal also found that the remaining physical therapy and assessment plans were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and further assessments would be duplicative.

The claims for a special award and interest were dismissed.

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

The applicant claimed ongoing physical and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG and sought funding for various treatment plans and assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, relying on the unanimous conclusions of several independent medical examiners and the lack of compelling medical evidence of chronic pain or psychological conditions.

As the $3,500 MIG funding limit had already been exhausted, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant argued that chronic pain, including neck, shoulder, back, and jaw pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that her ongoing pain did not cause functional impairment.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's physiatry evidence that the applicant's ongoing pain was attributable to her work posture as a dental hygienist rather than the accident.

The application for a $3,175.80 physiotherapy treatment plan and interest was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The LAT found that a subsequent fall and seizure was an intervening event not caused by the accident.

On appeal, the appellant argued the LAT breached procedural fairness by allowing the insurer to raise causation late, and erred by applying the 'but for' causation test instead of the 'material contribution' test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the procedural fairness issue could not be raised for the first time on appeal, and that the LAT correctly applied the 'but for' test as this was not an exceptional case involving multiple tortfeasors.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting inconsistencies in the medical evidence and a failure to meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

The application for medical benefits, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for an income replacement benefit (IRB), interest, and an award under Regulation 664.

The applicant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, violated procedural fairness, and made errors of fact and law by conducting its own assessment of the medical evidence rather than deferring to the disability certificate or insurer's examination.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal has the statutory jurisdiction to determine benefit entitlement and did not err in its weighing of the evidence.

The reconsideration request was deemed an attempt to re-litigate the original case.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and a psychological treatment plan.

The respondent insurer delayed paying the IRB for over a year, demanding documentation that was not required to determine eligibility, despite having received the necessary OCF-2 and OCF-3 forms.

The Tribunal found the respondent's conduct in withholding the IRB to be imprudent, stubborn, and inflexible, and ordered an award of 50% of the delayed IRB amount under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Tribunal also found the disputed psychological treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary, noting it was not duplicative of the applicant's psychiatric consultations, and ordered it payable with interest.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain syndrome, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including a report from a chronic pain specialist, was inconsistent with her family physician's records and her own self-reporting.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's physiatrist's evidence that the injuries were soft tissue sprains/strains within the MIG.

As the injuries were minor, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The appellants appealed a judgment in a motor vehicle accident case where the trial judge admitted liability just before trial and the matter proceeded as a damages assessment before a jury.

The appellants contended that the trial judge failed to address transgressions by respondent's counsel, unfairly summarized evidence in jury instructions, and displayed reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the trial judge's conduct was fair and balanced, that many complaints were not objected to at trial, and that the allegations of bias did not meet the high threshold required to displace the presumption of judicial impartiality.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict that resulted in net zero damages due to deductibles and prior settlements, the court ruled on the defence's threshold motion.

The court preferred the evidence of the plaintiff's experts, finding that the plaintiff suffered from chronic pain syndrome caused by the accident.

The court concluded that the plaintiff sustained a permanent and serious impairment of an important function, thereby meeting the statutory threshold, despite the action ultimately being dismissed.

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle negligence action where liability was admitted but the jury found the accident caused no injuries, the defendant sought costs after the plaintiff’s action was dismissed.

The court considered the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the effect of Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 did not apply because the plaintiff obtained no judgment.

Applying the principle that costs generally follow the event, the court concluded there was no misconduct justifying departure from that principle, though the plaintiff’s financial circumstances were considered in assessing quantum.

The defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs and reduced disbursements in an amount the court considered fair and reasonable.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for statutory accident benefits, arguing it was statute-barred because the plaintiff failed to mediate her claim and failed to return settlement funds prior to commencing the action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment for ongoing income replacement benefits.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the failure to mediate and return the settlement funds deprived the court of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed on the merits due to contradictory evidence regarding her disability.