Yanick Charbonneau

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

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

The applicant argued that he should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment (Generalized Anxiety Disorder) and chronic pain with central sensitization.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a psychological impairment, noting that his family doctor consistently recorded his mental health as stable and he did not attend referred group counselling.

The Tribunal also rejected the chronic pain claim, finding that the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain syndrome and that surveillance evidence showed him performing physical activities inconsistent with functional impairment.

As the injuries were deemed predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The Tribunal found the respondent's denial of a $2,198.80 physiotherapy treatment plan failed to comply with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, entitling the applicant to payment for incurred services.

However, the denial of a $2,693.82 occupational therapy assessment was compliant, and the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal awarded interest on overdue benefits but declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, finding the benefits were not unreasonably withheld.

The applicant sought a Non-Earner Benefit and payment for various treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's ongoing pain was caused by pre-existing degenerative disc disease rather than the accident.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that MRI results and independent medical examinations confirmed the symptoms were degenerative.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, including claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming for physiotherapy and psychological services.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery for her soft-tissue injuries and failed to prove the physiotherapy treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to demonstrate the proposed hourly rate for psychological services was reasonable.

The claims for benefits, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were 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 argued her injuries fell outside the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that her mild scoliosis and arthritic pain were caused or exacerbated by the accident to the level of chronic pain with functional impairment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no objective medical evidence of a psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

As the injuries did not remove the applicant from the MIG, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and special award were denied.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for three psychological treatment plans, a special award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the psychological issues were caused by the accident, noting that the treating psychologist's reports focused on family issues and lack of employment.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 assessment, which found insufficient objective evidence of an accident-related psychological impairment, the Tribunal concluded the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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 removal from the MIG was warranted due to pre-existing conditions, a psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal first dismissed the respondent's motion to exclude late-filed medical evidence, finding the prejudice to the applicant outweighed that to the respondent.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that pre-existing conditions prevented his recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not substantiate his claims of psychological impairment or chronic pain with objective medical evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal held the applicant's injuries were minor, subject to the MIG limits, and he was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

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 his injuries, including a concussion, psychological impairments, and chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective medical evidence to support a concussion or psychological impairment diagnosis.

Applying the AMA Guides, the Tribunal also found the applicant's chronic pain did not result in a functional impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limits, which had been exhausted.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to rescind a settlement agreement reached with the respondent insurer regarding statutory accident benefits arising from two 1996 motor vehicle accidents.

The applicant argued the settlement was invalid because the Settlement Disclosure Notice failed to include the commuted value of attendant care benefits, as required by s. 9.1 of Regulation 664.

The Tribunal found that res judicata did not apply from prior proceedings.

However, the Tribunal held the settlement was valid because the applicant had not claimed attendant care benefits at the time of settlement, making it impossible and unnecessary for the insurer to provide a commuted value for a benefit with a quantum of zero.

The application was dismissed.