Thomas Zwiebel

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain and psychological injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal excluded the applicant's family doctor's clinical notes and records due to an unexplained 175-day delay in service.

Without these records, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving non-minor injuries, as the remaining evidence from a chiropractor and occupational therapist could not diagnose psychological conditions.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, and dismissed the claims for treatment plans and interest.

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 Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he sustained a shoulder tear caused by the accident or that his pre-existing conditions warranted removal from the MIG under s. 18(2) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought $3,638.00 for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the plan, relying on an insurer's examination by an orthopedic surgeon who concluded the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of objective medical evidence, a significant pre-existing workplace injury, and the persuasiveness of the insurer's examination.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy services.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispute the denial.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to commence the application within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule, as the limitation period was triggered by the initial clear and unequivocal denial, not a subsequent explanation of benefits following insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

Consequently, the claim for the treatment plan was statute-barred, rendering the issue of the Minor Injury Guideline moot and disentitling the applicant to interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to submit his OCF-1 application within the prescribed 30-day period.

The respondent denied benefits and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant was barred from proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for the delay—that submitting the form would complicate ongoing settlement negotiations for a prior accident—was not reasonable.

Consequently, the applicant was barred from applying to the Tribunal under section 55(1) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide submissions or evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, relying on section 44 assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she was able to engage in lighter tasks and various activities of daily living.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant was not entitled to IRBs or interest.