Dr. Tatiana Dumitrascu

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a May 2020 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied treatment plans for chiropractic, psychological, and psychiatric services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG, noting a subsequent accident in June 2024 complicated causation.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters complied with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for chiropractic services, a chronic pain program, and an orthopaedic assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a concussion, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, finding that the applicant's dizziness pre-dated the accident, his pain complaints were likely degenerative, and his psychological testing was normal.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, and since the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly soft-tissue injuries and failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition sufficient to remove him from the MIG.

The application for disputed treatment plans and interest was 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 claimed entitlement to physical therapy, transportation, and psychological assessments, arguing that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to justify removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's expert evidence and concluded the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer's examinations, which concluded the injuries were minor soft tissue injuries.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was also dismissed as the applicant failed to provide evidence of his pre-accident activities to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2020 motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), various treatment plans, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were due to pre-existing degenerative disc disease and a prior 2016 accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her impairments were caused by the subject accident, relying on the respondent's s. 44 assessors who concluded her physical and psychological complaints were not accident-related.

All claims for IRBs, treatment plans, assessments, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and she did not qualify for a non-earner benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing psychological condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the medical evidence demonstrated the applicant continued to engage in her pre-accident activities 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.

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unreliable as it lacked validity testing and was based on self-reporting.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found symptom magnification and no psychological disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit, dismissing the claims for treatment plans and interest.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The medical evidence, including clinical notes from her family physician, did not corroborate her claims of accident-related chronic pain or psychological injury.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries that had resolved.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, her claims for various treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing his physical injuries fell outside the MIG and that he sustained an accident-related psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence supported physical injuries consistent with the MIG, such as cervical strain and whiplash-associated disorder.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not sustain an accident-related psychological impairment, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence corroborating his reported symptoms.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limit was nearly exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various treatment plans and assessments outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and did not result in functional impairment consistent with chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no evidence of psychological impairment, over the applicant's assessment.

Consequently, the applicant was not removed from the MIG, and the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to several chiropractic and psychological treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a concussion, chronic pain with functional impairment, or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's multidisciplinary assessments, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, an award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to produce ordered medical and employment records without explanation.

Relying on the respondent's medical assessments, the adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he remained independent with self-care, household tasks, and his studies.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied as no benefits were owed.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unpersuasive due to provisional diagnoses and inconsistencies in reporting.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence that pre-existing conditions precluded recovery or that the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the injuries were deemed subject to the MIG limit.

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).

She claimed entitlement to income replacement benefits, a psychological assessment, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove her injuries, including alleged psychological impairments, fell outside the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's expert reports, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment and was not entitled to income replacement benefits or the disputed treatment plan.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), rejecting expert evidence of psychological impairment and chronic pain syndrome.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for five disputed physiotherapy and psychological treatment plans because the respondent's denial letters contained boilerplate language that failed to provide sufficient medical reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

A claim for a chronic pain assessment was dismissed as the denial notice for that plan was compliant.

The Tribunal declined to order an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as he failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment.

The applicant was denied an income replacement benefit due to lack of evidence.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for two chiropractic treatment plans because its denial letters failed to provide specific medical reasons as required by section 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for other treatment plans and an award under Regulation 664 were dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a concussion, psychological impairment, and Chronic Pain Syndrome.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a diagnosis of a concussion or a psychological impairment, noting the applicant's pre-existing anxiety and lack of objective testing.

The Tribunal also rejected the chronic pain claim, finding the applicant did not meet the criteria under the AMA Guides and lacked evidence of functional impairment.

As the injuries were deemed predominantly minor, the application for disputed treatment plans beyond the MIG limit was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that she failed to establish a psychological impairment that would remove her from the MIG.

Because the MIG limit was exhausted and the respondent's denial notices complied with the Schedule, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically disputing a treatment plan for psychological services.

The respondent argued the application was barred by res judicata, as a previous Tribunal decision had already determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal agreed, finding the four preconditions for res judicata were met and that the applicant's new medical reports did not constitute fresh evidence that would conclusively impeach the original result.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plan or interest.