Harouna Saley Sidibé

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic services, acupuncture, an attendant care assessment, and a catastrophic impairment assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found the respondent provided sufficient medical reasons for denying the treatment plans under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

All claims, including requests for an award and interest, were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries warranted removal from the MIG due to a diagnosis of accident-related post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal approved two disputed physiotherapy treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as he failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, lacking sufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities.

A claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was also dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological and chronic pain evidence was outweighed by the respondent's expert assessments and the lack of contemporaneous complaints in the family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's impairments were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were denied.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week post-accident mark, requiring him to prove a complete inability to engage in any reasonably suited employment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, relying on surveillance evidence and expert reports suggesting the applicant had some capacity for work.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony, corroborated by his spouse and medical evidence, established that his chronic pain and severe psychological impairments prevented him from sustaining employment.

The Tribunal placed significant weight on the applicant's experts and found the surveillance evidence did not contradict his reported limitations.

The applicant was awarded ongoing IRBs and interest on overdue payments.

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

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he was barred from proceeding due to non-attendance at an insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not barred from proceeding, as the respondent failed to provide a requested interpreter for the examination.

However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, as he failed to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant returned to work shortly after the accident and did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting chronic pain or psychological conditions and giving limited weight to a late expert report.

As the MIG limit applied, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

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 that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment, placing significant weight on the respondent's psychological assessment which found only subclinical symptoms.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of several treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, and an attendant care assessment, as well as a claim for a special award.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the physiotherapy plan or the attendant care assessment due to a lack of objective medical evidence demonstrating functional limitations.

However, the Tribunal granted the outstanding balances for four psychological treatment plans, preferring the treating psychologist's recommendation for 1.5-hour sessions over the insurer's 1-hour approvals.

A subsequent psychological treatment plan was denied based on a psychiatric assessment attributing current symptoms to non-accident-related factors.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

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

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments, including anxiety and sleep disturbances, removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for a physiotherapy treatment plan and a psychological assessment, finding both reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's requests for a special award and costs due to the insurer's late disclosure of documents were denied, as the conduct did not meet the high threshold for unreasonableness or bad faith.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services.

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

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including hospital records, family doctor notes, and an insurer's examination report, indicated the applicant sustained uncomplicated soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's impairments were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

As the MIG limit applied, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to several chiropractic and psychological treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a concussion, chronic pain with functional impairment, or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's multidisciplinary assessments, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries, consisting of sprains and strains, met the definition of a minor injury and that he failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition or chronic pain to warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plan for physiotherapy was not considered, and claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan and an attendant care assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant sustained only minor injuries and did not require further assessment or physiotherapy.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries, including a concussion and sciatica, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied a $2,693.75 physiotherapy treatment plan on the basis that the MIG limit of $3,500 had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a concussion or other non-minor injuries resulting from the accident.

The Tribunal also found the respondent complied with the notice requirements under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.