Frank A. Calcagni

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming the outstanding balance for a TENS unit and a treatment plan for physiotherapy (electro-acupuncture).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the specific, higher-cost TENS unit was reasonable and necessary compared to standard retail models.

The Tribunal also denied the physiotherapy treatment plan, noting a lack of evidence regarding treatment progression or medical recommendation, and relying on the respondent's insurer's examination which concluded maximum medical recovery had been reached.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain treatment program following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

A previous application for the same treatment was denied by the Tribunal in 2021.

The applicant submitted a new treatment plan and filed a new application.

The respondent moved to bar the application based on res judicata.

The Tribunal found that the four preconditions for res judicata were met and that the applicant's new evidence did not conclusively impeach the original results or show a material change in circumstances.

The application was dismissed and the applicant's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for physiotherapy and psychological treatment following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had significant pre-existing physical and psychological conditions, and the medical evidence did not establish that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for an award under Regulation 664, finding no evidence that the respondent's conduct was excessive or imprudent.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought $12,580.00 for a multidisciplinary chronic pain program following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant's current pain complaints were not accident-related and she had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal found the proposed program lacked specificity and the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the applicant's reporting of her injuries and preferred the respondent's medical evidence, which concluded the applicant had achieved maximum medical improvement.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting a lack of corroborative medical evidence, functional disability, or psychological impairment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for three treatment plans (OCF-18s) for chiropractic and psychological services, which the respondent insurer denied in whole or in part.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the balances of the first two treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as they exceeded maximum guideline amounts or lacked supporting evidence for report writing fees.

However, the Tribunal partially approved the third treatment plan for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy, finding it reasonable and necessary based on consistent medical evidence of ongoing pain and functional improvement.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and interest.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for attendant care benefits, finding the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

The Tribunal granted the cost of a mattress as an assistive device, finding it reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's sleep disturbance.

The Tribunal also awarded $924.24 for occupational therapy services because the insurer's denial letter failed to provide sufficient medical and other reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The remaining claims for occupational therapy and chiropractic services were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to comply with a production order regarding her pre-accident medical records.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits for attendant care, assistive devices, and psychological and physiological treatment.

The insurer denied the claims.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the psychological treatment plan, as the evidence demonstrated that his pre-existing psychological issues were exacerbated by the accident.

However, the claims for attendant care and assistive devices were dismissed because the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, and failed to provide evidence that the expenses were incurred.

A claim for a special award was also dismissed, as the insurer's denials were not improper.

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

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

The applicant argued her injuries, including a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and chronic pain, fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from injuries outside the MIG, noting insufficient medical evidence and lack of documented impact on her daily life.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for medical benefits, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming for occupational therapy services and a Muse wearable headband.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had largely recovered from her injuries and returned to work and other activities shortly after the accident.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed treatment plans were neither reasonable nor necessary, as the evidence did not support the need for the occupational therapy and the psychological treatment plan lacked identified goals.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and a special award were denied.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer four Toronto actions to Brampton so that they could be tried with two related Brampton actions arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The motion relied on Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing transfers of proceedings between courts.

Although the accident occurred in Toronto and several Rule 13.1.02 factors appeared to favour Toronto as the venue, the evidentiary record lacked information regarding the convenience of parties and witnesses and whether judicial resources were available in the proposed receiving region.

The court also noted that the required consultation protocol with the Regional Senior Justices had not been followed.

The motion was therefore dismissed without prejudice to bringing a motion to transfer the Brampton actions to Toronto.