Dr. Waxer

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairments, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary based on medical evidence and contemporaneous reporting.

A treatment plan for an orthopaedic assessment was denied as the applicant failed to establish it was warranted.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue benefits.

The appellant sought an appeal and judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him income replacement benefits under the 'any occupation' test and denying an extension of time to request reconsideration.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law or procedural unfairness in the adjudicator's handling of expert evidence, cross-examination, or factual findings.

The court held the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and dismissed the appeal and judicial review application.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans 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 failed to provide compelling objective medical evidence to substantiate his claims, noting inconsistencies between the expert reports and the applicant's daily activities, including his return to full-time work.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, and because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans, award, and interest were denied.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing the denials were non-compliant with s. 38 of the Schedule and that he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the respondent's denials were compliant.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to demonstrate that his subsequent back pain was caused by the accident rather than his heavy lifting at work, and placed little weight on a psychological assessment that lacked corroborating objective medical evidence.

The application was dismissed as the MIG limit was exhausted.

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 applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, finding no psychological impairment, and concluded the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found to be subject to the MIG funding limits.

Personal injury trial arising from a 2015 motor vehicle accident involving a plaintiff with a prior 2012 collision and earlier mental health history.

The court rejected the defence theory that the plaintiff was malingering or merely misattributing pre-existing impairments, and found that the 2015 accident caused soft tissue injuries, chronic pain, psychological injury, headaches, and cognitive deficits that permanently impaired work and daily functioning.

Applying the but-for causation test and the thin skull rule rather than the crumbling skull principle, the court held that the plaintiff had substantially recovered from the earlier accident but remained vulnerable to more serious consequences from the later collision.

The court awarded general damages, past and future income loss, future care costs, and derivative damages to the family claimant.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's s. 44 assessors over the applicant's experts, noting contradictions in the applicant's psychological evidence and a lack of objective medical documentation supporting significant impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, including physiotherapy, a chronic pain program, psychological treatment, aqua therapy, and assessments.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on Insurer's Examination reports.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling contemporaneous medical evidence to support the treatment plans.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, noting the applicant's active work and family life and the lack of objective signs of accident-related impairment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing jaw pain, psychological issues, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting a lack of chronic pain diagnosis and preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which found symptom magnification.

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

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various medical and rehabilitation benefits, and the cost of assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he continued to engage in many pre-accident activities and was employed at the time of the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, a functional ultrasound, a chronic pain assessment, and a cognitive assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary given the soft-tissue nature of the injuries.

The respondent was ordered to pay $460.00 for the outstanding cost of a psychological assessment, but claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant, a minor, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for occupational therapy, an orthopaedic assessment, and chiropractic services under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's physical impairments had fully healed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting inconsistencies in the medical evidence and relying on an insurer's examination which concluded the physical impairments had resolved.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by basing its decision solely on credibility, violated procedural fairness by not holding an oral hearing, and made errors of fact regarding his reported activities.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal properly weighed the totality of the medical and surveillance evidence, the applicant had consented to a written hearing and had opportunities to respond to the surveillance evidence, and the Tribunal made no significant errors of fact.

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

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans for chiropractic and massage services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

The applicant argued that chronic pain and pre-existing conditions removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish functional impairment from chronic pain, noting inconsistencies in her self-reported symptoms and a lack of supporting employment records.

Furthermore, the applicant's pre-existing conditions were not disclosed to assessors and did not prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor, dismissing the claims for treatment plans and interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The parties settled all issues except expenses shortly before the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator determined that the applicant was entitled to expenses under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator awarded $1,200 for legal fees, $3,500 for expert reports (allowing the reports of Dr. Jha and Dr. Braganza but rejecting a second report by Dr. Waxer as duplicative), and $1,150 for disbursements, for a total expense award of $5,850.