Mitchell J. Barber

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including psychological, chiropractic, massage, physiotherapy, and chronic pain assessments, as well as a catastrophic impairment determination assessment, following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

Specifically, the Tribunal noted a lack of objective medical evidence linking the applicant's psychological and physical complaints to the subject accident rather than subsequent accidents, and highlighted significant gaps in the medical evidence.

The applicant sought payment for a physiotherapy treatment plan in the amount of $1,249.24 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan based on an insurer's examination report.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary, placing significant weight on the clinical notes and records of the treating practitioners which showed the applicant was benefiting from the treatments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the treatment plan with interest, but declined to order an award for unreasonable delay.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain caused by the accident, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for an orthopaedic assessment and a physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments, but the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was denied as the insurer's conduct was not excessively imprudent or stubborn.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

However, the applicant was awarded a physiotherapy treatment plan because the respondent insurer failed to provide a proper denial notice under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for a psychological assessment and a special award.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $16,931.56 in income replacement benefits, finding that the applicant wilfully misrepresented his employment status by returning to work as a realtor and operating a short-term rental business without disclosing the income to the insurer.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been reached.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries warranted treatment beyond the MIG, noting the lack of specialist evidence other than a neurologist who diagnosed a predominantly minor injury.

The application for the treatment plan, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied certain benefits, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and requested the applicant attend insurer's examinations (IEs) under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing that the Schedule does not permit an IE to determine the applicability of the MIG.

The respondent requested a preliminary issue hearing to determine if the application was barred under s. 55.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's interpretation of the Schedule was incorrect and that she was required to attend the IEs.

Because the applicant failed to attend the IEs without a reasonable explanation, she was barred from proceeding with her application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision barring him from proceeding with his application for statutory accident benefits due to his failure to attend insurer's examinations without a reasonable explanation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Schedule, statutory notice requirements, and the necessity of the examinations.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant error of law or fact, and noted the applicant was attempting to reargue his case.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that barred her from proceeding with her application (except for an income replacement benefit claim) due to her failure to attend two section 44 independent medical examinations.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by finding the examinations were necessary and that she lacked a reasonable explanation for non-attendance.

The Vice Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no significant error of law or fact in the original decision and noting that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the case.

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

The insurer denied two treatment plans on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and required the applicant to attend insurer's examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing that s. 44 does not permit an examination to determine the applicability of the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the insurer is entitled to request an examination to determine if the MIG applies, and that the applicant's legal interpretation was incorrect.

Because the applicant failed to attend the examinations without a reasonable explanation, he was barred from proceeding with his application under s. 55 of the Schedule.

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

The respondent insurer requested two s. 44 insurer's examinations to address the applicability of the Minor Injury Guideline and the need for attendant care benefits.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing the examinations were not legally permitted.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding with her application under s. 55 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to request the examinations to respond to new medical documentation and that the applicant's erroneous legal position was not a reasonable explanation for non-attendance.

The applicant was barred from proceeding with her application, save for her income replacement benefit claim.