Tyler Moore

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.

The matter was scheduled for a written hearing.

Neither party filed submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to the benefits and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, the Tribunal found the burden was not met and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but neither party filed submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of demonstrating entitlement to the disputed benefits and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, the Tribunal found she failed to meet her evidentiary burden.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy services.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispute the denial.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to commence the application within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule, as the limitation period was triggered by the initial clear and unequivocal denial, not a subsequent explanation of benefits following insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

Consequently, the claim for the treatment plan was statute-barred, rendering the issue of the Minor Injury Guideline moot and disentitling the applicant to interest.

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

The matter was scheduled for a written hearing, but neither party filed submissions.

As the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence to meet her evidentiary burden, the Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and funding for physiotherapy and a physiatry assessment.

The insurer had suspended IRBs due to the applicant's failure to attend section 44 examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, relying on functional abilities evaluations and the applicant's return to work as a cashier.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for physiotherapy as not reasonable and necessary, and declined to order a special award, finding the insurer did not unreasonably withhold benefits.

The insurer agreed to fund the physiatry assessment, and the Tribunal ordered interest on that overdue payment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and seeking income replacement benefits and physiotherapy costs.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence.

Proceeding under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for a chronic pain assessment and treatment program following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of chronic pain inconsistent and insufficient to meet the AMA Guides criteria, concluding his injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $7,036.98 in income replacement benefits, finding he willfully misrepresented his receipt of employment insurance and disability benefits.

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

The respondent denied several treatment and assessment plans 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 for removal from the MIG due to post-concussion syndrome, pre-existing scoliosis, and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a concussion or psychological injury warranting removal, and failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial notices were compliant with the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in an atypical motor vehicle accident in July 2021 but did not apply for accident benefits until April 2023, 21 months later.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis of the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation—that she was unaware she could apply for accident benefits until her long-term disability claim was denied and she consulted a lawyer—was credible but not reasonable, as ignorance of the law alone does not constitute a reasonable explanation.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was barred from proceeding with her application and dismissed the matter.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether the applicant was entitled to psychological and physiotherapy services, interest, and an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664.

The Tribunal denied the claim for psychological services, finding the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary given the lack of lasting improvement.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for physiotherapy services, noting corroborating evidence of chronic pain from treating specialists.

The claim for an award under s. 10 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

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

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence, despite receiving notice of the hearing and follow-up correspondence.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet their evidentiary burden to demonstrate removal from the Minor Injury Guideline or entitlement to the disputed treatment plans, award, and interest.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG, claiming he sustained a concussion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence, primarily from chiropractors, did not establish a concussion diagnosis.

Relying on the clinical notes of the applicant's family physician and an insurer's examination report, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained only minor injuries.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans and assessments were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of demonstrating removal from the Minor Injury Guideline and entitlement to the claimed benefits, the Tribunal found she had not met her evidentiary burden.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

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, arguing she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing lower back and knee conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded her recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The application for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and various treatment plans.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that he suffered a concussion, a pre-existing condition, a psychological injury, or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not meet the test for non-earner benefits, as he failed to demonstrate 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 entitlement to non-earner benefits and funding for psychological and chiropractic treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to establish a pre-existing condition or psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following her son's motor vehicle accident, claiming she was an 'insured person' as a dependent of the named insured (her brother's spouse).

The respondent denied benefits and brought a preliminary issue hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's monthly government financial assistance surpassed the 50%+1 threshold of her expenses, meaning she was not principally dependent on the named insured or her spouse for financial support.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's motion to strike the applicant's sur-reply materials and admitted examination under oath transcripts from a related priority dispute.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions.

Pursuant to section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal proceeded without the applicant's participation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to demonstrate removal from the Minor Injury Guideline or entitlement to the disputed benefits.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the applicant was not an 'insured person' under the Schedule.

In a preliminary issue hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant was principally dependent for financial support or care on the named insured or her spouse.

Applying the Miller and Allstate dependency criteria, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to establish that the applicant, who was 19 years old and working at the time, was principally dependent on the named insured or her spouse.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic services, psychological services, and medication expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the proposed chiropractic and psychological treatments were not reasonable and necessary based on the respondent's expert medical assessments, which showed no objective physical impairments and a deterioration in mood despite prior psychological treatment.

The medication expense had already been reimbursed.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.