Dr. Weinstein

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's section 44 assessors who concluded the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery for his minor injuries and that his heel pain was pre-existing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 and interest, as no benefits were overdue.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying entitlement to a neuropsychological assessment, multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessment, and SPECT scan.

The applicant argued procedural unfairness, errors of law and fact, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness, no errors in weighing the medical and surveillance evidence, and that the applicant failed to explain why the new evidence could not have been obtained prior to the hearing.

The defendant requested a case conference to compel the plaintiff to sign a medical authorization form prior to an independent medical examination with a psychiatrist.

The plaintiff's counsel failed to attend the case conference despite being notified.

The court held that the issue could be determined expeditiously at a case conference under Rule 50.13.

The court ordered the plaintiff to execute the authorization, noting that it simply sets out the plaintiff's obligation to provide an accurate medical history and list of injuries, which is standard and necessary for the examiner to produce a report under Rule 53.03.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented him from working as a carpenter and security guard.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employments.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's experts because they were not informed of his second job as a security guard and relied on incomplete documentation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors and noted surveillance and employment records contradicted the applicant's testimony.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.