Alanna Rozalowsky

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide submissions or evidence regarding his pre- and post-accident activities, making it impossible to apply the comparative analysis required by Heath to determine if he suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The medical evidence, including clinical notes from her family physician, did not corroborate her claims of accident-related chronic pain or psychological injury.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries that had resolved.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, her claims for various treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer kept the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) for 13 months after receiving an x-ray report confirming a pelvic fracture, only removing him from the MIG after he applied to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the respondent unreasonably withheld and delayed the payment of benefits by maintaining its MIG position despite medical evidence of a non-minor injury.

The applicant was awarded 25% of the amount of the disputed treatment plans under s. 10 of Reg. 664, totaling $1,534.69.