Jessica Cavdar

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting his continuous employment in construction post-accident.

The Tribunal also held the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and afforded little weight to his psychological evidence, concluding he did not warrant removal from the MIG.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a $2,195.00 physiotherapy treatment plan, $226.51 for prescription medications, and a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the physiotherapy was not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant's right shoulder pain originated from a subsequent gym injury rather than the accident.

The claim for medication expenses was denied due to a lack of supporting documentation.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and the injuries were not accident-related.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the right toe injury was caused by the accident, noting its absence in contemporaneous medical records.

Furthermore, medical assessments indicated the applicant had full range of motion and had returned to pre-accident activities.

The application was 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) and the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor was already determined in a 2020 Tribunal decision and was therefore subject to res judicata.

The Tribunal declined to waive res judicata, finding no new evidence to impeach the original decision.

The Tribunal also concluded that the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for psychological and orthopaedic assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective evidence to demonstrate that the assessments were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits, medical benefits for physiotherapy, and the cost of examinations for mental health and chronic pain assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's expert reports due to their reliance on self-reporting without a Somali interpreter and failure to include signed expert duty acknowledgments.

The respondent's section 44 assessments, which utilized an interpreter and found symptom magnification and minor injuries, were preferred.

The applicant sought medical benefits for two treatment plans for chiropractic services and massage therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the contemporaneous section 44 assessment of the respondent's medical examiner, which found no evidence of impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in preferring the respondent's medical evidence over his own experts and in its assessment of his pre-existing back pain and chronic pain.

The adjudicator found no significant error of law or fact, noting that the original decision appropriately weighed the medical evidence, including the timing of the assessments and the applicant's own medical records.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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) and the requested treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting her active lifestyle including weightlifting and combat sports contradicted claims of chronic pain and functional impairment.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial notices complied with section 38(8) of the Schedule, and the applicant failed to prove the disputed assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing lower back pain and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a pre-existing condition that would preclude maximal medical recovery within the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical examination which found normal range of motion and no functional limitations.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services 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 pre-existing chronic shoulder pain and a post-accident chronic pain diagnosis.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical examination, conducted seven months post-accident, over the applicant's assessment conducted 37 months post-accident, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

As the applicant led no evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving entitlement to removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, income replacement benefits, and the disputed treatment plans.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically a $1,988.96 physiotherapy treatment plan.

The insurer denied the plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted treatment beyond the MIG limit.

Furthermore, relying on an Insurer's Examination and the lack of supporting medical evidence from the applicant, the Tribunal concluded the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and a bad faith award under Regulation 664 were also dismissed.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $2,738.00 for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan as not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal first addressed procedural issues regarding the applicant's late written submissions and documentary evidence, ultimately allowing them to ensure a decision on the merits.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the chiropractic treatment was reasonable and necessary, as contemporaneous medical records and treating physicians recommended other treatments (orthotics, cortisone injections) rather than chiropractic care.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a medical benefit for chiropractic and physiotherapy services following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plan on the basis that it was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had recovered from his accident-related injuries and had returned to his pre-accident activities before suffering a serious workplace injury in 2015.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary to treat injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's medical evidence did not sufficiently support the need for the specific chiropractic services requested, especially given clinical notes indicating the applicant was golfing regularly and had a normal shoulder.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in two separate motor vehicle accidents in February 2015 and April 2016.

She sought medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 limit of the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) for both accidents, arguing she suffered psychological injuries and had pre-existing conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a psychological diagnosis or a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery if subjected to the MIG limits.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries for both accidents fell within the MIG, and she was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans.