Gareth Neilson

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a road rage incident where he pursued the assailant's vehicle on foot and was injured upon making contact with it.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the Greenhalgh purpose and causation test, finding that while the vehicle was being used in a normal fashion at the exact moment of injury, the incident failed all three parts of the causation test.

The applicant's decision to pursue the vehicle broke the chain of causation, and the dominant feature of the incident was the individuals, not the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded the incident was not an accident.

The respondent's request for costs was denied as there was no evidence the applicant acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary, accepting the respondent's expert evidence that the applicant had reached maximum recovery.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming costs for a gym membership, a personal trainer, and a chronic pain management program.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing they were not reasonable or necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, preferring the respondent's in-person medical assessment over the applicant's virtual assessments and noting the lack of contemporaneous evidence or referrals from the applicant's family doctor.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

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

She claimed psychological injuries triggered by viewing a video of the accident scene, which showed a house where she had previously experienced abuse.

The Tribunal found that viewing the video did not constitute an 'accident' under the Schedule, as it did not arise from the ordinary use or operation of an automobile.

Consequently, her psychological impairments were not accident-related.

The Tribunal also found her physical injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

Claims for income replacement benefits, psychological treatment plans, an award, and interest were dismissed.

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

The applicant also claimed entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor, relying on contemporaneous medical records and independent assessments.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, noting a lack of medical evidence demonstrating an inability to work.

All claims were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment 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 a full-thickness shoulder tear, concussion, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the contemporaneous medical evidence, including initial hospital records, supported a diagnosis of minor injuries such as whiplash.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove the shoulder tear or psychological impairments were caused by the accident, noting surveillance evidence of an active lifestyle.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plan or interest.