Jeff Chatterton

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.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence, despite multiple notices from the Tribunal.

Proceeding in the applicant's absence under section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the adjudicator dismissed the application in its entirety, finding the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to establish entitlement to the claimed benefits.

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

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and the fact that the applicant had already received concurrent physical therapies.

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

The application was 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 that the applicant demonstrated she suffered from a psychological condition (anxiety, PTSD, and depression) caused by the accident, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved a treatment plan for a psychological assessment and partially approved a treatment plan for psychological services, adjusting the hourly rate to that of a psychotherapist.

Interest was awarded on overdue benefits, but the claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed as the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming $1,212.63 for psychological services and $6,194.88 for physiotherapy services.

The respondent partially denied the psychological services based on the Professional Services Guideline hourly rates and denied the physiotherapy services on the basis that the applicant had achieved maximal medical recovery.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for both claims, as she provided no submissions regarding the disputed hourly rates and no contemporaneous medical evidence to support the need for further physiotherapy.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, asserting the applicant's 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 syndrome and a mild traumatic brain injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's expert medical evidence was not corroborated by the clinical notes and records of her family physician.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet her burden to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, and dismissed the application.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for resolution, seeking removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate functional impairment from chronic pain or a diagnosed psychological condition.

Consequently, the applicant was held to the MIG limit, and the claims for additional treatment plans were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant demonstrated chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed as the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of being unreasonable, but interest was awarded on overdue payments.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for various treatment plans, including psychological and chronic pain assessments, and physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The applicant provided minimal evidence of chronic pain causing functional impairment, no evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery, and no objective evidence of a psychological injury.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and the application was dismissed.

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

The applicant sought funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence or submissions to demonstrate that his injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological conditions, warranted removal from the MIG.

As the applicant was held to the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans were not analyzed for reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed.

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 a psychological condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment, noting the applicant's medical records primarily documented non-accident-related concerns.

The Tribunal also placed little weight on a psychological pre-screen report that relied on self-reporting without validity measures.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit, rendering the disputed treatment plans moot.

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 injury.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet his burden of proof, preferring the respondent's medical evidence which showed the applicant did not meet the AMA criteria for chronic pain and that his psychological testing indicated symptom over-endorsement.

As the applicant was held to the MIG, his claims for treatment plans, assessments, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for optometric services, a functional abilities evaluation, and physiotherapy following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference from the applicant's failure to produce agreed-upon medical and employment records.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which indicated the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and that the proposed vision therapy was not a recognized treatment.

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological conditions.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, noting significant gaps in medical records regarding pain complaints and a lack of objective evidence for psychological impairment.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to three chiropractic treatment plans and arguing he should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic knee pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, noting his medical records showed a pre-existing history of knee issues and did not link his current pain to the accident.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's argument that the insurer failed to provide valid medical reasons for denying the treatment plans under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, physiotherapy 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 objective medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG, noting that self-reports of psychological symptoms and limited clinical records did not establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, as the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Consequently, the claims for treatment plans, interest, and a statutory award were also dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant met his onus to be removed from the MIG based on chronic pain with a functional impairment, relying on clinical notes from his family physician and treating specialists.

Consequently, the Tribunal approved three disputed physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, as the applicant provided no submissions to counter the respondent's psychological assessment.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue physiotherapy benefits but declined to order an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought $4,383.90 for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident, along with interest and an award for unreasonable delay.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of corroborating contemporaneous medical evidence in the family doctor's clinical notes.

The application was dismissed, and no interest or award was payable.

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 matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant's counsel previously withdrew, and the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to removal from the MIG, non-earner benefits, the disputed treatment plan, or interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including physiotherapy, orthotic devices, and a driving evaluation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy and orthotics were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical recommendations and pre-existing conditions.

The claim for the balance of the driving evaluation was dismissed as the insurer had already approved the statutory maximum.

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

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence, such as contemporaneous recommendations from her primary care physician, to demonstrate that the disputed physiotherapy was reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator also accepted the respondent's expert evidence that the applicant had reached maximal psychological recovery and would not benefit from further psychological services.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.