Dr. Victor Naumetz

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various treatment plans for psychological services, occupational therapy, assistive devices, and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were pre-existing and not caused or exacerbated by the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the "but for" test for causation.

The Tribunal relied on extensive pre-accident medical records and independent medical examinations demonstrating the applicant had a significant history of chronic pain, substance abuse, and psychological impairments that were unaffected by the accident.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB), chiropractic treatment plans, and an orthopaedic assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his essential work tasks within 104 weeks of the accident, or a complete inability to work thereafter.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's examiners over the applicant's assessors, noting the lack of corroborating medical evidence for the applicant's claimed impairments.

The claims for treatment plans and assessments were also dismissed as the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, arguing that a pre-existing clavicle fracture was exacerbated, leading to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of functional impairment or disability resulting from chronic pain, noting that he continued to work and travel, and did not meet the criteria under the AMA Guides.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

As the MIG limit had been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied and the application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) for both the pre-104 week and post-104 week periods.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits based on multidisciplinary assessments concluding the applicant suffered minor injuries and could return to work.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to IRBs for a limited period from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017, as her injuries temporarily prevented her from working.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for ongoing IRBs, noting that the applicant had retrained as a personal support worker, completed practicums, and travelled internationally, demonstrating she no longer suffered a substantial or complete inability to work.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue benefits for the limited period.

The applicant sought a $2,260 benefit for a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident, as well as a special award under Regulation 664 for unreasonable delay.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting that independent medical examinations and treating physicians did not diagnose chronic pain or indicate a need for further assessment.

The adjudicator also dismissed the applicant's request to exclude the respondent's evidence for alleged non-disclosure, finding the request overly broad and lacking evidence of prejudice.

The application for benefits and the claim for a special award were dismissed.