Nancy Aquilina

The applicant sought 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's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to establish that pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the claim for massage therapy and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft tissue in nature and that she failed to provide compelling evidence of chronic pain, psychological impairment, or pre-existing conditions that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the proposed treatment plans exceeded the MIG limit, the application for benefits was 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 chronic pain, including neck, shoulder, back, and jaw pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that her ongoing pain did not cause functional impairment.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's physiatry evidence that the applicant's ongoing pain was attributable to her work posture as a dental hygienist rather than the accident.

The application for a $3,175.80 physiotherapy treatment plan and interest was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying an award for the respondent's alleged unreasonable withholding of income replacement benefits and costs.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in relying on the respondent's expert testimony and failing to consider the applicant's overall condition.

The Tribunal found no material error of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, noting that the respondent appropriately adjusted the claim and reasonably relied on its medical assessors.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the insurer's notices denying two treatment plans for physiotherapy, massage therapy, and assistive devices were deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, rendering them payable.

However, a separate treatment plan for assistive devices was denied as a duplication of services.

The Tribunal also denied the disputed balance of a psychological treatment plan and a proposed orthopaedic assessment, finding the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

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

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement from her soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's self-reports of chronic pain were not compelling and that the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed and no benefits or interest were awarded.

The applicant sought payment for a psychological treatment plan and transportation expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the balance of the psychological treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which noted significant improvement and recommended a more limited intervention.

The transportation expense was denied as the applicant did not establish travel beyond the 50-kilometre deductible.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant contended that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's psychiatric expert whose opinion aligned with the treating family physician's records.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and psychological assessments.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries were not predominantly minor.

The medical evidence did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain or a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the injuries were within the MIG, the Tribunal did not need to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment plans, and no interest was payable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $3,919.41 for psychological treatment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the treatment plan was not properly completed, as the physiotherapist who signed it lacked the scope of practice to opine on psychological impairments.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the treatment was not reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's anxiety-related symptoms were attributed to relationship issues rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied.