Neil Levine

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a concussion and should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's claims for a physiotherapy treatment plan and a physiatry assessment, finding that the applicant failed to provide compelling contemporaneous evidence that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and an award were also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing she should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing shoulder condition and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that her pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, her claims for psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans, as well as interest, were 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 she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments, and claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting a lack of documented functional impairment or significant psychological diagnosis.

Applying the Heath factors, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was denied the non-earner benefit, disputed treatment plans, and interest.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing knee condition, which included degenerative osteoarthritis and meniscus tears, was exacerbated by the accident, precluding recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant removed from the MIG and approved the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services, along with interest on overdue payments.

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 sought removal from the MIG based on a partial shoulder tear, pre-existing conditions, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological issues.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support removal from the MIG on any of these grounds.

The applicant's expert reports were given less weight due to non-compliance with procedural rules and lack of functional impairment evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant remains within the MIG and is not entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, supported by ongoing treatments and specialist assessments, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment but denied the claims for an attendant care assessment and chiropractic services, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the approved chronic pain assessment.

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) and that she was barred from proceeding for failing to attend an insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not barred from proceeding because the respondent failed to prove notice of the examination was sent.

However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were minor, as there was no compelling evidence that her pre-existing psychological conditions or back pain were exacerbated by the accident or precluded her recovery within the MIG limits.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for a psychology assessment and other benefits was dismissed.