Virginia Essipova

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as she failed to establish that her physical injuries or chronic pain warranted removal.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a $2,000 chronic pain assessment because the respondent's denial letter failed to provide sufficient medical reasons, violating section 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for physiotherapy and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied several treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment as a result of the accident, removing him from the MIG and its $3,500 funding limit.

The Tribunal approved five treatment plans for chiropractic and physical therapy services as reasonable and necessary, but denied two assessment plans for lack of supporting medical evidence.

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

The respondent denied claims for psychological, chiropractic, and medication benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that his right knee injury and psychological conditions warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries were more than minor, noting normal range of motion, negative imaging for fractures, and a lack of evidence supporting a psychological injury.

As the applicant had exhausted his MIG limits, the application for additional benefits was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he was removed from the MIG due to a neurological impairment (sciatica) and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a concussion, sciatica, or a psychological impairment caused by the accident, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury, and because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The plaintiff sued the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) for negligence after falling on a bus with a wet floor.

The court examined the bus driver's standard of care, considering the TTC's operator manual and the prevailing weather conditions.

The court found that the driver operated the bus reasonably and prudently, and the plaintiff's fall was not reasonably foreseeable.

Consequently, the action for negligence was dismissed.

The court also made hypothetical findings on causation and contributory negligence, determining that if negligence had been found, the plaintiff would have been 75% contributorily negligent.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation 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) and the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the applicant had exhausted the $3,500 MIG limit, the application for further benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant argued that chronic pain and psychological impairments removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of functional impairment from chronic pain or a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's s. 44 psychological assessment.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG funding was exhausted, the application for further benefits and interest was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued she suffered from psychological impairments and chronic pain that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychologist over the applicant's psychologist, finding the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of chronic pain caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed as the injuries fell within the MIG.

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

The respondent denied funding for physiotherapy and psychological treatment plans 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 Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome as a result of the accident that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The applicant's appeal was dismissed.