Dr. Weinberg

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 Tribunal found that the applicant sustained only soft tissue injuries and failed to prove that a pre-existing knee condition or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

As the disputed treatment plans exceeded the MIG limit, they were not payable.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as the claim was not frivolous.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans 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 she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent's initial denial of a psychological treatment plan was non-compliant with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

As a result, the respondent was prohibited from relying on the MIG for that specific treatment plan until a compliant notice was issued.

The applicant was awarded the incurred costs for psychological services during the period of non-compliance, but her other claims for chiropractic treatment, a psychological assessment, and an award under Regulation 664 were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) and medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a cleaner for the first 104 weeks, entitling her to IRB for that period.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited beyond the 104-week mark, as she had subsequently worked as a caregiver.

The claims for psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans were dismissed for lack of evidence proving they were reasonable and necessary.

A claim for a special award was also dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied certain medical and attendant care benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant treatment beyond the MIG limits.

As the applicant had exhausted the $3,500 MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans and attendant care benefits were not payable.

The application was dismissed, and the claim for a special award was denied.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal which found that his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator preferred the objective medical evidence of the respondent's experts over the self-reported evidence of the appellant's treating physicians, noting credibility issues with the appellant.

The Divisional Court held that the adjudicator properly applied the law and that the decision was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing caregiver benefits beyond the 104-week mark, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to chronic pain and depression.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's severe chronic pain disorder and major depression continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, including caring for her three special needs children.

The arbitrator awarded the maximum weekly caregiver benefit of $350.00, plus interest, but denied the applicant's claim for a special award, finding the insurer's termination of benefits was not unreasonable based on the medical reports available at the time.