Roderick Walker

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 failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of chronic pain, psychological injury, or a pre-existing condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, as the applicant did not provide evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain with a functional impairment.

Applying the AMA Guides as an analytical tool, the adjudicator noted the applicant did not rely heavily on prescription medication and maintained independence in her daily activities.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's s. 44 physiatry assessment, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor.

The application for a $2,941.38 chiropractic treatment plan and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment and assessment plans for psychological and chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, who concluded that the applicant suffered only minor physical strains and did not meet the criteria for a psychological diagnosis, over the applicant's self-reported complaints and the reports of his treating practitioners.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The medical evidence indicated large gaps in treatment and an intervening fall that caused significant injuries, breaking the causal link to the accident.

Furthermore, the adjudicator preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no accident-related psychological disorder.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit and funding for psychological assessments and treatment.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the funding limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant provided insufficient evidence to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life for the purpose of the non-earner benefit.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence of accident-related impairments or chronic pain.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical examination report, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and had no physical impairment from the accident.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence, including clinical notes from the applicant's family doctor and treatment providers, did not support a finding of chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, dismissing the claims for additional treatment plans and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that her physical or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG, noting a lack of objective medical evidence for chronic pain or a concussion.

The application for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay was 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 claimed a psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG and sought funding for a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found no compelling evidence of an accident-related psychological impairment, noting the applicant only consulted his family doctor once by phone post-accident with no psychological complaints reported.

The Tribunal held the applicant remains within the MIG and dismissed the claims for the assessment, interest, and an award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for an occupational therapy device, specifically the repair of a heated car seat, costing $927.60.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, relying on an insurer's examination that concluded the device was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met her burden of proving the device was reasonable and necessary to manage her chronic pain while driving in winter months, supported by her occupational therapist's report.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the treatment plan with interest, but declined to order a special award as there was no evidence of unreasonable delay or ill intention.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, and chronic pain assessments outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, noting the lack of objective medical evidence, the absence of complaints to family doctors, and Facebook posts showing the applicant performing physical activities without apparent discomfort.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was limited to the remaining MIG funding.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, specifically non-earner benefits.

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was barred from proceeding because he failed to submit an Election of Income Replacement, Non-Earner or Caregiver Benefit form (OCF-10).

The applicant argued that the OCF-1 and OCF-3 provided sufficient information to show he was only eligible for non-earner benefits, making an OCF-10 unnecessary.

The Tribunal found that there was sufficient ambiguity regarding the applicant's potential entitlement to different benefits, making the insurer's request for an OCF-10 valid.

Because the applicant failed to make an election pursuant to section 35 of the Schedule, there was no valid dispute.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the claims for an OT neurocognitive assessment, physiotherapy, and a chronic pain assessment were statute-barred, as the applicant failed to file the application within the two-year limitation period following clear and unequivocal denials by the insurer.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for psychological services, preferring the insurer's section 44 assessment which concluded the applicant did not suffer from an accident-related psychological impairment at the time the plan was submitted.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, and a psychological assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were mechanical and myofascial in nature, and his psychological symptoms were minimal and below average.

The Tribunal also found no compelling medical evidence that the applicant's pre-existing seizure disorder precluded recovery within the MIG.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, a chiropractic treatment plan, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical injuries, including neck, back, and heel pain, were minor in nature and did not meet the criteria for chronic pain.

Furthermore, the adjudicator accepted the respondent's psychological assessment that the applicant did not meet the criteria for any mental health diagnosis.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding insufficient evidence comparing the applicant's pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide expert medical evidence or documentation to establish that his injuries were non-minor or psychological in nature.

A sleep study indicated normal sleep, and there were no referrals to specialists.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, subject to the MIG limits, and dismissed the application.

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 applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, seeking removal from the MIG due to psychological injuries, specifically PTSD and adjustment disorder, and claiming entitlement to a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's assessor, finding the applicant sustained a psychological injury that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the psychological assessment and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence did not support the need for further facility-based treatment, and the applicant failed to provide sufficient explanation for the increased length and cost of psychological sessions.

The application was dismissed.

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 his psychological injuries and chronic neck and shoulder pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient contemporaneous medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting the applicant's primary complaints were treated conservatively by his family doctor.

The application for a $2,951.33 chiropractic treatment plan was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary, and the MIG limits had already been exhausted.

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 the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological injuries that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain, noting her own self-evaluations indicated 100% improvement shortly after the accident.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no psychological impairment warranting a DSM-5 diagnosis.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment and assessment plans were not payable.