Ray Di Gregorio

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $4,400 for a neuropsychological assessment and psychometric testing under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting a pre-existing history of depression and headaches, and a lack of evidence that the proposed assessment was required as a result of the accident.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide evidence demonstrating his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal determined that the insurer's initial denial notice was defective under section 38(8) of the Schedule for failing to provide medical reasons.

A subsequent denial notice was found to be compliant.

As a result, the insurer was ordered to pay for any treatment incurred between the 11th business day after receiving the plan and the date of the compliant denial.

The claim for a section 10 award was dismissed.

The applicant sought a housekeeping and home maintenance benefit of $8,800 following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her sister provided these services.

While the Tribunal found the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the tasks, it dismissed the claim because the applicant failed to prove her sister sustained an economic loss as required by section 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for costs to reimburse her for obtaining her employment file, finding the respondent's request for the file was reasonable to assess her functional abilities.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB).

The insurer sought to deduct post-accident business income earned by the applicant in 2016 from the IRB under section 7(3)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued he was not actively engaged in the business post-accident, having hired another chiropractor to run day-to-day operations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant remained actively engaged in major business decisions and that the Schedule does not distinguish between active and passive income for the purposes of deduction.

The Tribunal held that the insurer was entitled to deduct the post-accident business income, reducing the applicant's IRB entitlement to zero.

The applicant applied for arbitration concerning her entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

Her counsel previously withdrew from the record after losing contact with her.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled pre-hearing and the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator dismissed the application as vexatious due to the applicant's failure to provide evidence or attend, and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $750.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied.

After mediation failed, the applicant applied for arbitration but subsequently lost contact with his counsel, who was permitted to withdraw.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing despite being notified.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration as abandoned and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $1,500.