Patrick Molloy

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 Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, diagnosed as sprains, strains, and a partial tear, fell within the MIG definition.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's psychological assessment that the applicant did not suffer a psychological injury warranting diagnosis or treatment.

As the applicant was held to the MIG and had not exhausted the $3,500 limit, the claims for additional physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB), various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, as the psychological evidence relied entirely on self-reporting and lacked objective clinical support.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a real estate agent.

All claims, including requests for interest and an award, were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and an attendant care assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting that the injuries were primarily soft tissue and the applicant's hand injury was from a subsequent fall.

The Tribunal also found no evidence supporting the need for an attendant care assessment.

The claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming unapproved amounts for psychological services and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the psychotherapist services warranted an hourly rate above the prescribed minimum in the FSRA Professional Services Guidelines.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to support the claims for progress reports, brokerage services, and service planning.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic pain impairment warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's long-term chronic pain and multiple barriers to recovery.

However, the Tribunal denied a psychological assessment, as the applicant failed to demonstrate a psychological injury resulting from the accident.

The applicant was awarded interest on the overdue chronic pain assessment but was denied an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 due to a lack of supporting particulars.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to treatment plans for psychological services and chronic pain assessments, arguing that psychological impairments and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a psychological condition or chronic pain with functional impairment that would preclude recovery within the MIG limits.

Relying on the respondent's psychiatric and physical assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought entitlement to a chronic pain program and physiotherapy services under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's section 44 assessments, which concluded the applicant had sustained soft tissue injuries, reached maximum medical improvement, and did not meet the criteria for a chronic pain disorder.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently denied.