Trina Morissette

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome, psychological impairments, and pre-existing conditions including depression and drug addiction.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition precluding recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the in-person assessments of the respondent's experts over the virtual assessments of the applicant's experts.

The application was dismissed, with the applicant entitled only to any remaining funds within the $3,500 MIG limit.

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 funding limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, relying on an orthopaedic report.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains, giving little weight to the applicant's expert report as it was based on subjective questionnaires over the phone.

Preferring the respondent's physiatry report based on an objective physical examination, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not demonstrate chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for further treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim for a psychological assessment was statute-barred because he failed to dispute the respondent's clear and unequivocal partial denial within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, botox injections, occupational therapy, and psychological services were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to determine whether the applicant's slip and fall incident constituted an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant had loaded a clothes dryer onto a pickup truck and subsequently slipped on an icy road, causing the dryer to allegedly fall on him.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The Tribunal concluded that the icy road was an intervening cause and the vehicle was not the dominant feature of the injuries.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The medical evidence, including assessments from a physiatrist, psychiatrist, and occupational therapist, did not support the applicant's subjective reporting of his limitations.

The Tribunal also noted credibility concerns regarding the applicant's self-reporting.

The application was dismissed.