Dr. Walters

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her onus, noting the lack of supporting medical evidence and giving little weight to a chiropractor's disability certificate.

Relying on the insurer's medical examination, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

The claims for physiotherapy treatment plans outside the MIG, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent insurer on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The adjudicator excluded late-filed medical evidence from the applicant due to non-compliance with disclosure rules.

Relying on the insurer's examinations, the adjudicator found the applicant failed to prove the injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans and claims for interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident while working as an Uber driver.

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he was not entitled to an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove a psychological impairment, noting inconsistencies in his self-reporting and surveillance video showing him performing various physical tasks.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding no medical evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for further treatment plans and assessments were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident, including a functional abilities evaluation, chiropractic services, physiotherapy, massage therapy, and occupational therapy.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's section 44 medical assessments, which indicated the applicant had returned to work and was functional in her activities of daily living, and noted a lack of objective medical evidence from the applicant to support the need for ongoing passive facility-based treatment.

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 suffered from chronic pain that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's initial injuries were soft tissue in nature and that the sudden onset of new symptoms nearly two years later was not causally linked to the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, and dismissed the claims for treatment plans, interest, and costs.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments, including driving-related anxiety and depression, warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the applicant's psychological expert over the respondent's.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the specific disputed treatment plans because the applicant failed to provide the actual treatment plans (OCF-18s) or make submissions demonstrating that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought entitlement to four treatment plans (OCF-18s) for chiropractic and kinesiology treatment totaling over $12,000.

The respondent denied the plans based on an insurer's examination which concluded the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had already received extensive physical therapy with minimal improvement, and that the proposed treatment was excessive and unlikely to achieve its stated goals.

The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding his post-accident limitations.

The application for the treatment plans was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a chiropractic treatment plan and a mental health assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from psychological impairments caused by the accident, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating family physician over the respondent's assessors.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the chiropractic treatment plan, the mental health assessment, and applicable interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and various treatment plans.

The respondent denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in her self-reporting and preferring the evidence of the respondent's assessors.

The Tribunal also found the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed, and no award or costs were granted.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and chiropractic treatment, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a concussion and was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment, entitling him to IRBs for the first 104 weeks post-accident.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment, precluding IRB entitlement beyond 104 weeks.

The Tribunal also held that the chiropractic treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

Notably, the Tribunal determined that the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) received by the applicant is tantamount to "other remuneration from employment" under the Schedule and is therefore deductible from the IRB entitlement.

The claim for an award was dismissed as the insurer's denial was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident essential tasks as a security guard due to a knee injury.

The respondent insurer terminated the benefits based on an insurer's examination concluding the knee issues were not causally related to the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating an inability to perform the essential tasks of prolonged sitting and walking during the disputed period, noting he had engaged in sedentary work and later took a physically demanding job.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and a chronic pain program.

The insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer examinations concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Tribunal found the applicant's chronic pain diagnosis more consistent with the evidence and approved the treatment plans as reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal awarded interest on overdue payments but declined to order a special award under Regulation 664, finding no evidence the insurer acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans, citing a gap in treatment and an insurer's examination concluding the shoulder injury was not causally linked to the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's ongoing pain and the lack of explanation from the insurer's assessor regarding causation.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the physiotherapy and chronic pain assessment with interest, but denied the applicant's request for a bad faith award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including psychological treatment, physical rehabilitation, and the cost of a psychological assessment.

The adjudicator preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's assessor, finding the psychological treatment and assessment reasonable and necessary.

The physical rehabilitation plan was also approved based on ongoing pain.

However, the adjudicator dismissed the claim for a special award, finding the insurer gave reasonable consideration to the available information when denying the benefits.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order granting certification of a class action regarding allegedly defective hip implants.

The defendants argued that the motion judge's approach to evidence on commonality conflicted with other decisions and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the 'some basis in fact' standard for certification.