Francine Papadopoulos

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $3,000.22 for a physiotherapy treatment plan under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary to assist in relieving the applicant's chronic pain, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating family doctor and physiotherapist over the insurer's paper review.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the treatment plan amount plus interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for three treatment plans for psychological services.

The insurer approved the plans but disputed the 1.5-hour session length, arguing for 1-hour sessions.

The Tribunal found the 1.5-hour sessions reasonable and necessary, noting that both the treating psychologist and the insurer's assessor agreed the applicant was improving and needed additional sessions.

The Tribunal ordered payment of the disputed balances and interest, but denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the insurer did not act unreasonably in questioning the session length.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and massage services, a physiatry assessment, and a chronic pain assessment following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted a significant gap of over three years where the applicant did not report accident-related pain to his physicians, breaking the causal link to the accident.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and a special award, while granting one treatment plan.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law by disregarding viva voce evidence from the respondent's adjuster and failing to provide sufficient reasons.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the original decision provided adequate reasons and properly weighed the evidence.

Although the Tribunal erred in failing to consider a special award for the single approved treatment plan, the applicant did not establish that this error would have likely changed the outcome.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents in 2017 and 2019.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her psychological impairments were caused by the accidents, attributing her symptoms to personal and financial stressors.

Claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and most medical benefits were dismissed, as the applicant had returned to work and independent medical examinations showed she did not require the claimed assistance.

The Tribunal granted one treatment plan for chiropractic services related to the 2019 accident, finding it reasonable and necessary for pain reduction.

The claim for a section 10 award was dismissed.

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 applicant argued he suffered from chronic pain and had a pre-existing condition that precluded his recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain or a pre-existing condition on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The application for a treatment plan, an award, interest, and costs was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought non-earner benefits and various medical benefits from the respondent insurer.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, as there was insufficient evidence of pre-existing conditions, psychological injuries, or chronic pain that would preclude his recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant returned to work and continued his normal activities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

The respondent denied the benefits 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 Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to submit an evidentiary record to prove his injuries were not predominantly minor or that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to exempt a $145,000 personal injury settlement from garnishment by a non-party judgment creditor.

The creditor argued the plaintiffs lacked clean hands due to past conduct in evading judgment.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct did not amount to a lack of clean hands and held that damages for pain and suffering, along with associated pre-judgment interest and legal costs, are exempt from garnishment.

The motion was granted, and the full settlement amount was exempted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic care and a physiatry assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a possible coccyx fracture and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a fracture and noted that the applicant's medical evidence failed to explain how her pain impaired her functioning.

Concluding that the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits had been exhausted, the Tribunal dismissed the application.