Amanda Marshall

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing for two chiropractic treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment because he failed to dispute the valid denials within the two-year limitation period, and declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

The Tribunal also found that the psychological assessment, psychological services, and driving evaluation were not payable under s. 38(11) of the Schedule, as the applicant failed to identify how the denials were deficient.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to two treatment plans for physiotherapy and assistive devices following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The contemporaneous medical records did not support the need for the assistive devices, and an insurer's examination concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery with no objective evidence of ongoing impairment.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal found that the insurer's denial notice for one of the treatment plans was defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule because it was not provided within 10 business days.

As a result, the insurer was ordered to pay for incurred expenses under that plan for a 120-day period, plus interest.

The remaining treatment plans were not payable.

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

The respondent denied two treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing psychological condition, her age, and an accident-related psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG, noting that age alone is not a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal also gave limited weight to the applicant's psychological report due to its lack of objective testing and reliance on self-reporting.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved a $2,200 psychological assessment as reasonable and necessary.

However, claims for a $6,447.13 psychological counselling plan and a $3,770.16 physiotherapy plan were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of how treatment goals would be met and a documented lack of therapeutic effectiveness, respectively.

Interest was awarded on the approved assessment plan.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a psychological impairment, a pre-existing sleep apnea condition, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a psychological diagnosis, no causal link or compelling evidence that the sleep apnea prevented recovery, and no functional impairment resulting from chronic pain.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a neurological assessment, interest, and an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting that diagnostic imaging showed pre-existing degenerative changes and the applicant had not reported radicular symptoms to his treating practitioners.

Although an independent medical examiner suggested the assessment for headaches, the adjudicator noted headaches were not listed as an accident-related injury.

The claims for the assessment, interest, and an award were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to establish a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional limitations caused by the accident.

The Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, limiting his entitlement to the MIG cap.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also 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 chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic pain and psychological issues pre-dated the accident and were not substantially worsened by it.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's physiatry assessment over the applicant's occupational therapy assessment, noting methodological flaws in the latter.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, and denied the claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664.

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

The respondent denied the 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 based on an exacerbation of pre-existing lower back pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no accident-related psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed benefits, interest, or an award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for concussion-based treatment plans (vestibular and vision therapy) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's neurological assessment over the applicant's, noting the applicant's assessor relied heavily on self-reporting and provided inconsistent conclusions.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was payable.

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

The respondent denied the treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he suffered an accident-related psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the claims for treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of an income replacement benefit (IRB), four physiotherapy treatment plans, and her placement in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the IRB because her post-accident employment income exceeded the benefit amount.

The Tribunal determined the applicant's injuries warranted removal from the MIG due to a documented concussion.

However, the physiotherapy treatment plans were denied as the applicant failed to provide evidence demonstrating they were reasonable and necessary.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans for neurological and chronic pain assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant filed her appeal beyond the two-year limitation period, but the Tribunal granted an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

While the Tribunal found the applicant's injuries did not warrant removal from the MIG, it held that the insurer's denial notices failed to provide sufficient medical reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Consequently, under s. 38(11), the insurer was ordered to pay for the disputed assessments with interest.

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 Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports over the applicant's limited medical evidence.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were denied.

Claims for a section 10 award, interest, and costs were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing depression and sports injuries, as well as accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain syndrome, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, concluding the applicant did not suffer a psychological injury or meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits and raised a preliminary issue regarding the applicant's failure to attend insurer's examinations (IEs) for psychological services.

The Tribunal found the applicant was statute-barred from pursuing the psychological services claim due to non-attendance at the IEs.

The Tribunal also denied the claims for chiropractic services, a chronic pain assessment, and a physiatry assessment, finding that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including costs for psychological and physical treatment plans.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not properly raised the issue of whether she should be removed from the MIG in the dispute.

As the applicant did not dispute that she was being treated within the MIG and her benefits were exhausted, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, an award, interest, and costs following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing that the applicant's inability to carry on a normal life was due to significant pre-existing physical and psychological conditions, not the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the accident, noting that his pre-accident conditions had already rendered him unable to work and limited his activities of daily living.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant could still engage in his pre-accident activities.

The claims for a non-earner benefit, an award, interest, and costs were dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing back and hip issues and a post-accident psychological injury.

The Tribunal found no compelling medical evidence that the pre-existing conditions would preclude maximal medical recovery under the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, finding the applicant's self-reporting did not support a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's injuries were deemed subject to the MIG limit.