Robert Rock

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent on the basis 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.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence, including clinical notes and psychological assessments, did not support removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial notices complied with section 38 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment plans and assessments following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that the respondent insurer failed to comply with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the respondent either provided compliant notices or, where notices were late, the applicant failed to prove that any expenses were incurred during the period of non-compliance.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and a s. 10 award were denied.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and approval for several treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical records indicated a return to functional baseline and independence in activities of daily living.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and attendant care assessments, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to two physiotherapy treatment plans, three psychological services treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy plans were reasonable and necessary, placing significant weight on the respondent's physiatry report which was corroborated by the applicant's own family doctors' clinical notes.

The adjudicator also found the respondent complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The psychological services plans were no longer in dispute as they had already been paid in full.

As no benefits were overdue or unreasonably withheld, the claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a $2,044.17 treatment plan for medical marijuana following a motor vehicle accident, along with interest and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including clinical notes and records from treating physicians and psychological assessments, did not recommend or support the use of medical marijuana for the applicant's chronic pain or psychological impairments.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and a section 10 award were consequently denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to an in-home assessment and five chiropractic treatment plans.

The respondent had removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that the medical evidence did not adequately explain why five duplicative chiropractic plans were required.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including clinical notes and records, did not support functional impairment or a psychological condition caused by the accident.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's expert reports due to inconsistencies and experts opining outside their areas of expertise.

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

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which were denied by the respondent insurer on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal but failed to provide substantive submissions or evidence for the written hearing, despite a peremptory adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that his injuries fell outside the MIG.

Consequently, the claims for psychological assessments and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for occupational therapy and rehabilitation therapy treatment plans following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the occupational therapy plan was duplicative of a previously approved plan that had not been exhausted.

The rehabilitation therapy plan was denied due to a lack of compelling medical evidence demonstrating it was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial notices complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for interest and a special award were 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).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain with a functional impairment and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including clinical notes from his family doctor, did not support his claims of chronic pain or psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG, dismissing the claims for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, interest, and an award.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical records and insurer examinations indicated she remained independent in her activities of daily living.

The Tribunal also found the chiropractic treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, as the family doctor's records did not support the need for treatment related to the accident.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including clinical notes from the applicant's family doctor and a psychological assessment, did not support the presence of chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition caused by the accident.

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

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 argued for removal from the MIG based on a psychological condition and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including the clinical notes and records of the family doctor, did not support a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG, dismissing the claims for treatment plans, interest, and an award.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he was not removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and was not entitled to disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made errors of law and fact in evaluating his chronic pain syndrome claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the case and reweigh evidence, specifically regarding the expert report of a physiatrist and the application of the AMA Guidelines for diagnosing chronic pain.

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 she suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective medical evidence to support removal from the MIG and concluded the respondent properly denied the treatment plans.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for an orthopaedic assessment, assistive devices, chiropractic services, and a non-earner benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, largely due to a lack of supporting medical evidence and failure to submit the OCF-18 forms.

The Tribunal also denied the non-earner benefit, relying on insurer examinations and surveillance evidence showing the applicant continued to engage in normal daily activities and employment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, an award, and interest.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting that her treating family doctor and psychiatrist's records did not support her claims of physical or psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's section 44 examination reports, which concluded the applicant suffered no ongoing accident-related impairments.

Consequently, the claims for the non-earner benefit and the treatment plans were dismissed, along with the claims for an award and interest.

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 that he did not qualify for income replacement benefits (IRB).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove he suffered from a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRB, noting the applicant returned to work shortly after the accident and failed to submit a disability certificate in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that one claim was statute-barred.

The Tribunal found that the claim for a February 2020 treatment plan was statute-barred as the application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain with a functional impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained in the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, though he was entitled to the remaining $529.55 of his MIG limit.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to submit the required disability certificate and other necessary information in a timely manner.

The application for IRB, along with claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay, was dismissed.