Steven Wilder

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits, psychological treatment, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal denied the income replacement benefits as the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden.

The psychological treatment claims were also denied because the incurred services did not align with the approved plans.

However, the Tribunal approved the chronic pain assessment, finding sufficient medical evidence to warrant an investigation into the applicant's ongoing pain symptoms.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit (NEB), medical benefits, and travel expenses.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that his pre-existing conditions were the primary cause of his impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the NEB, relying on medical evidence that his physical and psychological impairments continuously prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also approved the physiotherapy treatment plan and partial travel expenses, but denied the psychotherapy treatment plan, an award for unreasonable delay, and costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of several treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, travel expenses, and a claim for an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the chiropractic and two psychological treatment plans to be reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating physicians over the insurer's examiners.

The claim for travel expenses was denied as it did not meet the statutory criteria for emergency transportation, and one psychological treatment plan was denied because it was not submitted into evidence.

The Tribunal also denied the request for a special award, finding no unreasonable delay by the respondent, but awarded interest on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, travel expenses, and a special award.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit for the disputed period because her initial disability certificate (OCF-3) did not support her claim, and the insurer was not obligated to pay benefits prior to receiving a supportive certificate.

The claims for travel expenses were denied as the trips were under 50 kilometers and the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed as the insurer did not unreasonably withhold or delay payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer initially denied on the basis that the incident was an assault and not an 'accident'.

After a preliminary decision found the incident was an accident, the matter proceeded to a hearing on substantive benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits, transportation expenses, and assistive devices, finding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for occupational therapy services because the respondent's denial did not comply with the requirements of s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on any overdue benefits.

The applicant, a taxi driver, sought statutory accident benefits after an unidentified pedestrian shattered his driver's side window, causing glass to enter his eyes.

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the incident was an assault and not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that the vehicle was being used for its ordinary purpose and that the vehicle itself was the instrument of injury.

The Tribunal concluded the incident met the definition of an accident and ordered the matter to proceed to a substantive hearing.