Malcolm H. Zoraik

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

She also claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains, and she failed to prove that pre-existing conditions precluded her recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as required for the non-earner benefit.

All claims were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit and a physiotherapy treatment plan outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her soft tissue injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting she had returned to her pre-accident activities in a reduced capacity.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding no complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as he failed to establish a pre-existing condition or chronic pain with functional impairment that would warrant removal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit, finding the applicant did not meet his onus to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, and the respondent properly relied on an Insurer Examination to discontinue the benefit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 (55% whole person impairment) or Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting the applicant's pre-existing conditions and post-accident functioning, including international travel.

Claims for income replacement and attendant care benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment and the benefits had expired past the 260-week mark.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for massage therapy, botox injections, and acupuncture.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established the massage therapy was reasonable and necessary to treat ongoing chronic neck and back pain, supported by clinical records.

However, the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence or submissions demonstrating that the botox injections and acupuncture were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the massage therapy with interest, but dismissed the claims for botox and acupuncture.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's expert evidence which noted credibility issues and inconsistent effort during testing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of the applicant's pre-accident employment as a window packer.

All claims, including those for disputed treatment plans and interest, were 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 for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing back condition.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a documented history of back pain, there was no compelling medical evidence stating that the pre-existing condition precluded maximal recovery if kept within the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plan and interest.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant income replacement benefits up to a specific future date.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the adjudicator made an error of law by fixing an end-date for the benefits, which potentially fettered the insurer's ability to adjust the file if the applicant's eligibility changed.

The order was varied to state that the benefits are reinstated from the date they were stopped and are ongoing until no longer owing in accordance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.