Louise A Kanary

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained psychological impairments warranting removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, noting a lack of corroborating medical evidence and questioning the reliability of the psychological assessment report.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, her claims for treatment plans and assessments beyond the MIG limit, as well as interest, were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a neurological assessment, interest, and an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting that diagnostic imaging showed pre-existing degenerative changes and the applicant had not reported radicular symptoms to his treating practitioners.

Although an independent medical examiner suggested the assessment for headaches, the adjudicator noted headaches were not listed as an accident-related injury.

The claims for the assessment, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for rehabilitation support worker services and chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the rehabilitation support worker plans were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant's pre-existing impairments were consistent with his post-accident presentation and the goals of the plans had not produced any meaningful change in his activity.

The Tribunal also denied the chiropractic treatment plan, preferring the respondent's orthopedic surgeon's opinion that the accident-related pathology had healed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming $2,460 for a neurological assessment, along with interest and a special award.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence by the required deadline.

As the applicant bore the onus of demonstrating entitlement to the benefits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet this burden.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, noting the medical evidence conflated injuries from the subject accident with a subsequent accident and did not engage with the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG and the monetary limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans for neurological and chronic pain assessments were denied.

Claims for interest and a section 10 award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's medical records and a section 44 physiatry assessment did not support a finding of functional impairment, noting she had returned to work without restrictions.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for additional treatment plans and assessments beyond the $3,500 MIG limit.