Stephanie Kepman

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and medical and rehabilitation benefits for custom orthotics, chiropractic treatment, and massage therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting that his pre-accident activities were already severely limited by chronic pain and reliance on his wife for activities of daily living.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary, and accepting the respondent's insurance examination evidence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits.

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

The applicant argued that he suffered from chronic pain, which would remove him from the MIG.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's evidence, including a four-year-old chronic pain assessment and sparse clinical notes, was insufficient to prove ongoing chronic pain that caused functional restrictions.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and dismissed the application for benefits and interest.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain, removing him from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal denied the claim for physiotherapy, finding it was not reasonable and necessary as previous identical treatment had not helped.

The Tribunal granted the claim for a chronic pain assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary to investigate the condition further.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and that a subsequent accident caused the chronic pain.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding one treatment plan was statute-barred as it was appealed beyond the two-year limitation period without justification for an extension.

The Tribunal further held the remaining chiropractic plans were not reasonable and necessary, as previous similar treatments had been ineffective and the applicant failed to prove his impairments extended beyond minor soft tissue injuries.

Finally, the request for a chronic pain assessment was denied because the applicant failed to establish causation linking the chronic pain to the first accident rather than the second.

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

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

The Tribunal found that while the injuries were predominantly minor, the applicant's pre-existing condition of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, which was documented prior to the accident via glandular swelling, prevented maximal recovery under the MIG.

The applicant was therefore excluded from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for two chiropractic treatment plans, an in-home assessment, and a functional abilities assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, but denied a $108.00 chiropractic claim that exceeded the FSCO Professional Service Guideline.

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

The respondent denied the claims for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that her physical injuries, including a right knee condition, or her alleged psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the claims for additional medical benefits and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

The respondent denied the treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that a lumbar spine spasm and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of chronic pain causing functional impairment or disability.

The injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the claim for the $4,436.75 treatment plan and interest was dismissed.