Henry Harris

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment determination under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, along with attendant care benefits and funding for assessments.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not sustain a marked impairment in activities of daily living or social functioning, preferring the respondent's expert evidence over the applicant's due to a more robust, in-person assessment.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, the claims for attendant care benefits and assessments submitted beyond the 260-week limit were denied.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing spinal osteoarthritis and accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the mild osteoarthritis was a pre-existing condition or that it precluded recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the psychological complaints were self-reported and unsupported by a psychological assessment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, relying on multidisciplinary insurer's examinations to conclude the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, social work counselling, and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the applicant called no witnesses and provided no documentary evidence or submissions to support the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment plans.

The Tribunal admitted the disputed treatment plans into evidence over the respondent's objection but ultimately dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $400 per week, claiming an inability to work as a self-employed auto mechanic and cleaner.

The respondent denied the benefit, arguing the applicant's inability to work was due to pre-existing mental health and substance abuse issues rather than the soft tissue injuries sustained in the accident.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not support an accident-related impairment impacting the applicant's ability to work, noting inconsistencies in his testimony and a failure to produce ordered medical and employment records.

The application for IRBs, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $7,738.72 for a chiropractic treatment plan.

The respondent insurer denied the plan based on insurer's examinations which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence or address the goals of the treatment to prove it was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial was compliant with the Schedule and denied claims for interest and an award.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered from accident-related mental and behavioural disorders, he did not sustain a marked impairment in the spheres of activities of daily living or social functioning.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, noting the applicant maintained independence in personal care and continued to have meaningful social interactions with family and friends.

The claims for unapproved balances of assessment plans, interest, and an award were also dismissed.

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

The applicant also claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit, four chiropractic treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting a lack of medical evidence connecting his claimed conditions to the accident.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial notices complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as the applicant provided insufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

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

The applicant argued her pre-existing chronic neck and back pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG, preferring the insurer's physiatry assessment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant's self-reported limitations were contradicted by pre-accident medical records and lacked corroborating medical evidence.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer's examinations, which concluded the injuries were minor soft tissue injuries.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was also dismissed as the applicant failed to provide evidence of his pre-accident activities to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing he should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment, noting his expert's report lacked corroborating medical records and did not clearly align with the AMA Guides criteria.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's psychological claims, preferring the respondent's expert who found a lack of objective information supporting a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that his pre-existing right shoulder condition precluded recovery within the MIG, relying on an insurer's examination that found no residual impairment.

The Tribunal also rejected the chronic pain claim, noting the applicant continued to work and lacked functional impairment.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the psychological impairment claim, preferring the insurer's in-person assessments over the applicant's virtual assessment and self-reporting.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent insurer on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal applied the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain and found the applicant did not meet the required threshold, noting her continued full-time work and lack of excessive dependence on others.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment, as the treatment plans alone did not satisfy the burden of proof.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained psychological impairments warranting removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, noting a lack of corroborating medical evidence and questioning the reliability of the psychological assessment report.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, her claims for treatment plans and assessments beyond the MIG limit, as well as interest, were dismissed.

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing degenerative disc disease and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a pre-existing condition, she failed to provide compelling medical evidence that it precluded her recovery within the MIG limits, relying instead on the respondent's insurer's examination reports which found only uncomplicated soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for an income replacement benefit, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing she should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant was diagnosed with chronic pain, she failed to demonstrate the requisite functional impairment, as she continued to work full-time and remained independent in her activities of daily living.

The Tribunal also found insufficient medical evidence to support an accident-related psychological injury.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG, and her claims for treatment plans outside the MIG limit, along with claims for interest and an award, were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied due to a lack of supporting particulars.

The applicant sought $4,093.00 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan based on insurer's examinations by a physician and a neurologist, who concluded the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling contemporaneous medical evidence to support the plan, noting the family doctor's records did not mention the accident and the chiropractic records lacked follow-up.

The Tribunal accepted the insurer's examinations and dismissed the application, including claims for interest and an award.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as she did not demonstrate marked impairments in three out of four domains of functioning.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, who found the applicant capable of living independently and managing daily activities.

The applicant's claims for attendant care benefits, housekeeping benefits, and various treatment plans were also dismissed, as she failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary or incurred in accordance with the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological and physical injuries, as well as attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident was a necessary cause of her psychological impairments, noting significant pre-existing conditions and surveillance evidence contradicting her reported limitations.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the whole person impairment threshold for physical and psychological impairments combined.

Claims for attendant care benefits were denied as the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit, relying on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the test for an IRB, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating physicians and the respondent's own kinesiologist, who found the applicant demonstrated functional limitations below the physical demands of his pre-accident job as a café supervisor.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's other experts, noting inconsistencies in their reasoning.

The applicant was awarded the IRB with interest, but his claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal first determined that the applicant was not barred from proceeding despite failing to attend an insurer's examination, as the examination was requested months after the application was filed.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to an IRB because she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a customer service representative, having focused her evidence on her post-accident goal of becoming a hairdresser.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG, rejecting her claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment due to insufficient medical evidence and methodological flaws in her expert's psychological assessment.

Finally, the Tribunal found the insurer's denial notices were compliant with the Schedule, dismissing the application in its entirety.