Joseph M. Kositsky

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied two physiotherapy treatment plans because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing psychological conditions.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate that her pre-existing conditions precluded her recovery within the MIG, noting minimal evidence connecting her psychological issues to the accident.

The Tribunal also accepted the insurer's medical examination report concluding the physical injuries were minor soft-tissue injuries.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological symptoms were minor and did not warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessments over the applicant's, noting the applicant's symptoms were minor and partially attributed to postpartum issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and payment for a neurological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit because he failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he continued to engage in many pre-accident activities.

The claim for the neurological assessment was dismissed as statute-barred because the application was filed outside the two-year limitation period, and the applicant provided no grounds for an extension.

The Tribunal awarded interest on previously approved treatment plans, provided the expenses were incurred and unpaid.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming attendant care benefits of $29.38 per month and $1,394.50 for assistive devices and an education session.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the claimed benefits were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's assessment reports, which indicated the applicant remained independent in his activities of daily living and personal hygiene, over the applicant's reports, which failed to establish a nexus between his impairments and the need for an aide or assistive devices.

Furthermore, the applicant provided no evidence that the attendant care expenses had been incurred.