Kevin Yarde

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing she should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing condition involving partial paralysis from childhood polio.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence from a treating practitioner that her pre-existing condition would prevent her from achieving maximum medical recovery within the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's examination report, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG and the limits were not exhausted, the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and the claim for interest were denied.

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 argued for removal from the MIG due to a concussion and a pre-existing back condition.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a concussion diagnosis, noting that the physiotherapists who diagnosed it were not qualified to do so.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to prove his pre-existing back condition precluded his recovery within the MIG limits.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, he was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant should be removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing chronic pain condition in his right knee that was exacerbated by the accident.

The Tribunal approved a $2,333.72 treatment plan for chiropractic services as reasonable and necessary, but denied a $2,219.74 plan for psychological services, finding insufficient evidence linking the psychological impairment to the accident.

A claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue chiropractic benefits.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish a clinically significant psychological impairment, noting a lack of psychological complaints to his family physician and normal clinical scale results.

The applicant also failed to provide evidence to support a claim for a non-earner benefit.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's expert evidence which noted credibility issues and inconsistent effort during testing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of the applicant's pre-accident employment as a window packer.

All claims, including those for disputed treatment plans and interest, were 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).

She claimed entitlement to income replacement benefits, a psychological assessment, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove her injuries, including alleged psychological impairments, fell outside the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's expert reports, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment and was not entitled to income replacement benefits or the disputed treatment plan.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which were denied by the insurer.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution.

The adjudicator denied the claims for chiropractic services, finding the applicant had not demonstrated that ongoing treatment would improve her condition.

However, the adjudicator granted the claims for a chronic pain assessment, a biopsychosocial assessment, and cognitive devices (a tablet), finding them reasonable and necessary based on medical evidence showing chronic pain, ongoing psychological symptoms, and cognitive difficulties.

The applicant was also awarded interest on the approved plans.

The applicant sought payment for three chiropractic treatment plans and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the first treatment plan of $1,423.60 because the insurer failed to provide a proper written denial within the required time limit under section 38 of the Schedule.

The remaining two treatment plans were denied, as the Tribunal accepted the respondent's orthopaedic assessment that the applicant's ongoing shoulder issues, which arose after a significant gap in treatment, were not attributable to the accident.

The claim for an award was dismissed for lack of evidence, but interest was awarded on the approved plan.