Jesse A. Boyce

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain, which removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the requested physiotherapy services and an impairment assessment as reasonable and necessary.

However, requests for an in-home assessment and a psychological assessment were denied due to insufficient evidence.

Claims for an award and costs were also dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries, specifically chronic pain in his right wrist and shoulder, removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment and partially approved a Comprehensive Rehabilitation Programme, deducting costs for psychological treatments as the pain was entirely physical.

A treatment plan for chiropractic services was denied as a duplication of services.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant, a cyclist who was struck by a car door, sought statutory accident benefits for psychological services to address her fear of cycling.

The insurer denied the treatment plan, arguing it was not reasonable and necessary and had not been incurred.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's self-reporting compelling and preferred the evidence of her psychologist over the insurer's expert.

The Tribunal held that the treatment plan was reasonable, necessary, and incurred, ordering the insurer to pay the benefit of $1,196.88 plus interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to establish a psychological impairment or chronic pain condition that would remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, noting the latter omitted a significant life event.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove he missed work as a result of the accident, dismissing the claim for an income replacement benefit.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.