The claimant sought a determination that his impairments were outside of the MIG and entitlement to NEBs, the cost of prescription medication, and one treatment plan. Adjudicator Driesel found that the claimant was within the MIG and was not entitled to the disputed benefits.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to an attendant care assessment and assistive devices. Adjudicator Grant dismissed the claims. He held that the claimant’s physical and psychological injuries met the definition of “minor injury”. He also rejected the argument that the claimant suffered chronic pain as a result of the accident.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to various medical benefits. Adjudicator Watt held that the claimant’s injuries fell within the MIG. He rejected the opinion of the claimant’s neurologist because it was not based on accurate facts.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to three medical benefits for physical therapy. Adjudicator Victor held that the claimant’s injuries were predominantly minor. She preferred the opinions of the IE assessors. She also noted that the claimant had returned to work a few days after the accident.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to three medical benefits. Adjudicator Boyce dismissed the claim and held that the claimant had abandoned the application due to his failure to submit and written submissions or participate in any of the preliminary stages of the LAT dispute.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to four medical benefits. Adjudicator Norris held that the claimant’s injuries fell within the MIG. He rejected the arguments that the claimant suffered from pre-existing injuries, psychological injuries, or chronic pain.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two medical benefits for further physiotherapy. Adjudicator Mazerolle concluded that the claimant suffered a psychological impairment as a result of the accident, and was not restricted by the MIG limits. He awarded the two claimed medical benefits, writing that such treatment was promoting the claimant’s recovery.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to physiotherapy. Adjudicator Maleki-Yazdi concluded that the claimant suffered chronic pain syndrome, which entitled him to non-MIG benefits. The proposed physiotherapy was reasonable and necessary for improving the claimant’s pain level, functionality, and strength.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to four medical benefits for physical therapy and medical cannabis. Adjudicator Kershaw rejected the claimant’s argument that he suffered from a concussion, chronic pain, or a psychological impairment. She also rejected that his pre-existing injuries may have prevented maximal recovery under the MIG.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two medical benefits for psychological treatment. Adjudicator Norris concluded that the claimant suffered from psychological injuries as a result of the accident, which removed him from the MIG. The proposed medical benefits were found reasonable and necessary.
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles
Powered by Crow & Pitcher
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850