Brett Bell

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and two treatment plans for chiropractic services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, relying on insurer evaluations that showed the applicant continued to perform daily activities.

The Tribunal approved the first treatment plan for chiropractic services, finding it reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's positive response to prior chiropractic care and support from his general practitioner.

The second treatment plan was denied because it was not submitted into evidence.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his ongoing back pain, including spondylolisthesis, was caused by the accident.

Furthermore, the adjudicator rejected the applicant's psychological assessment due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence, preferring the respondent's insurer examination.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and the MIG limits had been exhausted, the application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs) following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to compare her pre- and post-accident activities.

Consequently, the applicant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application for NEBs, along with claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay, was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were minor soft-tissue sprains and strains, and that his ongoing pain was related to pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

The Tribunal also found the respondent complied with notice requirements and did not unreasonably withhold benefits.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, claiming his injuries had progressed to chronic pain with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence supported a diagnosis of soft tissue injuries falling within the MIG definition.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate chronic pain with severe functional impairment or any psychological injury.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for additional treatment plans and the cost of clinical records were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan 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 she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the in-person assessments of the respondent's experts and the clinical notes of the applicant's family physician over the virtual assessment of the applicant's expert.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological injury, and dismissed the application.