4 total
Applicant found not to have sustained a catastrophic impairment for mental or behavioural disorders.
The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.
The Tribunal reviewed expert evidence and the applicant's self-reported functioning.
The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reports unreliable and inconsistent with his academic, employment, and social history.
The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not sustain a marked impairment in social functioning or adaptation, and therefore did not meet the threshold for a catastrophic impairment.
Treatment plans approved due to defective denial notices, but injuries remain within Minor Injury Guideline.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, as no medical evidence was provided to warrant removal.
The applicant's claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed due to failure to provide required financial documentation.
However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for attendant care, chronic pain, and psychological assessments because the respondent's denial notices failed to provide medical reasons, violating s. 38(8) of the Schedule.
The claim for a special award was dismissed.
Jury notice provisionally struck due to anticipated COVID-19 trial delays in Windsor.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to provisionally strike the defendants' jury notices in a motor vehicle accident claim due to anticipated trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court noted the significant backlog of civil jury trials in Windsor and the prejudice the plaintiffs would suffer from further delay, particularly regarding the statutory reduction of pre-trial income loss.
The court granted the motion, ordering the matter to proceed as a judge-alone trial unless civil jury trials resume in Windsor by the scheduled trial date.
Application for physiotherapy benefits dismissed as applicant failed to prove treatment was reasonable and necessary.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $3,809.18 for a physiotherapy treatment plan.
The respondent denied the plan based on an orthopaedic surgeon's assessment concluding no further treatment was required.
The Tribunal admitted an addendum to the respondent's medical report on an unopposed motion.
The Tribunal found the respondent's comprehensive medical evidence more persuasive than the applicant's standalone treatment plan, concluding the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary.
The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.
