Teresa Walsh

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for four treatment plans, including chiropractic services, knee braces, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish that any of the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence, including an insurer's examination by an orthopedic surgeon, demonstrated a lack of ongoing accident-related physical impairments, and the psychological and chronic pain claims lacked objective medical support.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, with no benefits, interest, or costs awarded.

The applicant sought medical treatment benefits for physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, as she did not produce any objective, contemporaneous medical evidence to support the treatment plans and failed to comply with medical record production requirements.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent's orthopedic examiner, who concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and did not require further formal treatment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation 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 that a pre-existing condition from a prior accident prevented his maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition documented by a health practitioner before the accident that would prevent maximal recovery.

As the MIG limits had been exhausted, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans and interest.

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

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

The applicant argued her injuries, including a partial tendon tear and chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries met the definition of a minor injury and that she failed to establish chronic pain under the AMA Guides criteria.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plan was not considered, and the application was dismissed.