Orest Kuchar

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming $2,000 for an executive summary related to a catastrophic impairment assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the executive summary constituted a separate, reasonable, and necessary assessment, ordering the respondent to pay the benefit with interest.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for an award under section 10 of O. Reg. 664 and for breach of good faith, finding the respondent's initial denial was not unreasonable.

The Tribunal awarded $250 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's frivolous threat of a contempt motion.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment (traumatic brain injury) in a 2012 motor vehicle accident, sought $97,398.08 for home modifications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was partially entitled to the modifications, specifically bilateral handrails on stairs and releveling of front steps, to address his ongoing intermittent dizziness and fall risk.

Requests for a curb-less shower, deck, and private therapy room were denied as not reasonable or necessary.

The Tribunal awarded interest on overdue benefits but dismissed the applicant's claims for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 and costs under Rule 19.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, noting the applicant's quick return to work and the lack of objective psychometric testing by her psychological expert.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care, chiropractic, psychological, and occupational therapy services, as well as the cost of a catastrophic impairment assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the insurer failed to provide timely notice of denial for one chiropractic treatment plan, rendering it payable for the period of delay under s. 38(11) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also approved an in-home assessment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for attendant care benefits and the remaining treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, largely preferring the objective findings of the insurer's examiners over the applicant's subjective complaints.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was also dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care services, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to any of the claimed benefits.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide compelling medical evidence to establish a substantial or complete inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for attendant care and treatment plans due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The respondent's request for costs was denied, as the applicant's conduct was not found to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG, or that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, her claims for a psychological assessment, an award, and interest were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that the injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting a lack of functional impairment and pre-existing conditions.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were not considered, and the application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing osteoarthritis, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's medical evidence regarding chronic pain, noting she had failed to disclose five prior and subsequent workplace injuries to her assessors.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, and found the respondent's denial notices compliant with the Schedule.

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

The respondent denied funding for several treatment and assessment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed he developed psychological injuries and chronic pain syndrome warranting treatment outside the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a psychological injury or chronic pain condition, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports over the applicant's chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury, the disputed plans were not reasonable and necessary as they fell outside the MIG, and no award or interest was payable.

The application was 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) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued a pre-existing knee injury warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant proved a pre-existing knee condition, they failed to provide compelling medical evidence demonstrating that the condition precluded maximal medical recovery within the confines of the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied, and the application was dismissed.