Megan Murphy

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment determination under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, along with attendant care benefits and funding for assessments.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not sustain a marked impairment in activities of daily living or social functioning, preferring the respondent's expert evidence over the applicant's due to a more robust, in-person assessment.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, the claims for attendant care benefits and assessments submitted beyond the 260-week limit were denied.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a severe motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant claimed a combined whole person impairment (WPI) of 55%, relying on various physical and psychological assessments.

The respondent argued the WPI was 35%.

The Tribunal evaluated the competing expert medical evidence regarding the applicant's spinal impairments, scarring, headaches, vertigo, and psychological functioning.

Ultimately, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's experts on several key issues, concluding that the applicant's combined WPI was 50%.

As this fell short of the 55% threshold, the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding to a hearing because she failed to attend scheduled insurer's examinations.

The applicant argued the notices of examination were non-compliant and the insurer failed to prove it arranged the examinations at its expense.

The Tribunal found the notices were compliant with section 44 of the Schedule and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred under section 55(1)2, and the applicant's request for costs was denied.

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

The insurer partially denied two treatment plans in early 2020.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal in April 2025, well beyond the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

The applicant argued the denial notices were non-compliant and sought an extension under section 7 of the LAT Act.

The Tribunal found the denial notices were clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period, finding no bona fide intention to appeal, significant delay, prejudice to the respondent, and lack of demonstrated merit.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

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

The respondent denied or partially denied three treatment plans, citing the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than four years after the denials.

The Tribunal found that the denial letters were clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was significant, the respondent would be prejudiced, and there was no evidence of merit.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

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

The respondent denied three treatment plans, citing the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant filed an application with the Tribunal more than four years after the denials.

The Tribunal found that the denial letters were clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding the applicant failed to establish a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was significant, the respondent would be prejudiced, and the applicant failed to demonstrate the merits of the appeal.

The application was dismissed.

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, claiming entitlement to physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, and a psychological assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were mechanical and myofascial in nature, and his psychological symptoms were minimal and below average.

The Tribunal also found no compelling medical evidence that the applicant's pre-existing seizure disorder precluded recovery within the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for an occupational therapy assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant demonstrated she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG, based on a chronic pain assessment and consistent reporting of ongoing pain and withdrawal from activities.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the $2,195.01 treatment plan plus interest, finding it reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for a special award, concluding the insurer's reliance on its medical examination report, while ultimately unpersuasive, was not unreasonable.

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

The applicant passed away intestate before the Tribunal application was filed by his counsel.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as no Estate Trustee had been appointed to instruct counsel or commence the proceeding.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that without a legally recognized representative, counsel had no authority to file the application.

The application was dismissed as it was not properly commenced.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied several treatment plans and barred him from disputing a treatment plan for a Kubota tractor due to non-attendance at insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request regarding the Kubota tractor, car repair devices, and an outstanding treatment plan balance, finding no errors of law or fact.

However, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration in part, finding it had erred by applying an unduly narrow interpretation of 'objective medical evidence' for a mattress and pillow, and by failing to consider all stated goals for a John Deere lawn mower.

The applicant was awarded entitlement to the mattress, pillow, and lawn mower treatment plans, with interest.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found that the applicant was involved in an 'accident' when he fell from the roof of his transport truck while inspecting it.

The insurer argued the Tribunal failed to properly apply the 'but for' and 'intervening act' tests for causation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact.

The Tribunal confirmed that the use and operation of the truck was a direct cause of the impairments and that the ladder sliding away was not an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until they were terminated by the respondent.

The applicant initially disputed the termination but withdrew the application pursuant to a standstill agreement to allow a catastrophic impairment claim to proceed.

The applicant missed the deadline under the standstill agreement to refile the IRB dispute.

The respondent brought a preliminary issue motion arguing the claim was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, finding it had jurisdiction to extend the limitation period, and granted the extension based on the applicant's bona fide intention to appeal, the short delay, lack of prejudice to the respondent, and the merits of the case.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was barred from claiming IRBs under s. 31(1)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because she intentionally failed to notify the insurer of a material change in risk.

Specifically, the insurer alleged the applicant moved from Quebec to Ontario prior to the accident but maintained her Quebec-based insurance policy, which carried a significantly lower premium.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been residing and working in Ontario since February 2016, prior to the April 2017 accident, and failed to disclose this change to the insurer.

The Tribunal concluded this was a material misrepresentation that prejudiced the insurer.

The applicant's claim for IRBs was barred, and her request for relief from forfeiture and costs were dismissed.

During jury deliberations in a motor vehicle personal injury trial, the jury foreman conducted internet research and found the Fault Determination Rules under the Insurance Act.

The jury asked a question about the regulation, prompting the trial judge to give a correcting charge instructing them to disregard it.

The jury subsequently returned a verdict finding the plaintiff 73% contributorily negligent.

The plaintiffs moved for a mistrial, arguing the jury was contaminated and failed to follow the correcting charge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the correcting charge was sufficient, the jury's prompt disclosure of the research indicated a willingness to follow instructions, and the verdict was supported by the evidence.

The applicant, a taxi driver, was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated his income replacement benefits (IRBs) and denied certain medical and assessment treatment plans.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairments, entitling him to both pre-104-week and post-104-week IRBs.

The disputed medical and assessment plans were denied for lack of evidence of reasonableness and necessity at the time of submission.

The arbitrator awarded a maximum 50% special award against the insurer, finding it unreasonably withheld benefits by ignoring mounting medical evidence of the applicant's psychological and cognitive impairments and relying solely on outdated physical assessments.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant was entitled to pre-104 week IRBs because the insurer's own occupational therapy expert concluded she could not perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

However, post-104 week IRBs were denied as the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment, given her ability to manage a household and work part-time as a house cleaner.

A claim for massage therapy was denied as not reasonable or necessary.

The arbitrator awarded a $1,000 special award against the insurer for unreasonably terminating the pre-104 week IRBs despite clear evidence of the applicant's inability to perform her pre-accident job.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment based on mental or behavioural disorders (Criterion 8).

The applicant suffered a severe breast injury resulting in chronic pain, which she argued caused marked impairments in social functioning and adaptation.

The arbitrator applied the AMA Guides and found that while the applicant suffered from mental disorders, her impairments in social functioning and adaptation were at most moderate (Class 3).

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's work challenges stemmed primarily from physical pain rather than a mental disorder, and dismissed the application for catastrophic impairment.

The minor applicant was injured while riding a dirt bike on a privately owned track.

He sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent denied.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the Tribunal had to determine whether the motorcycle was an 'automobile' and whether the incident was an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the motorcycle was not required to be insured under the Off-Road Vehicles Act because it fell under the exemption for vehicles driven at a 'closed course competition'.

Consequently, the motorcycle was not an 'automobile' and the incident was not an 'accident'.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties settled the substantive issues prior to arbitration, with the insurer paying $11,422.54 for disputed treatment plans.

The applicant sought expenses for the arbitration proceeding.

The arbitrator found the applicant was successful and awarded expenses of $3,625.55, inclusive of HST, after reducing the claimed hours since the matter did not proceed to a hearing.