3 total
Applicant removed from Minor Injury Guideline due to chronic pain syndrome; disputed treatment plans approved.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for statutory accident benefits.
The insurer denied payment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffers from Chronic Post Traumatic Pain Syndrome, removing her from the MIG.
The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the disputed physiotherapy treatments, psychological assessment, and chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.
The applicant's claims for a special award and costs were dismissed, but interest on overdue payments was granted.
Claim for accident benefits dismissed as applicant failed to prove injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.
The respondent denied the treatment plan 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 that a lumbar spine spasm and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of chronic pain causing functional impairment or disability.
The injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the claim for the $4,436.75 treatment plan and interest was dismissed.
A summary judgment order granted on the mistaken premise of party consent was set aside.
The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued his insurer, Unifund, under the unidentified motorist provisions of his automobile insurance policy.
Unifund brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the claim on the basis that the identity of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle were known.
The motion judge granted the order on the mistaken premise that all parties had consented to it.
The plaintiff subsequently brought a clarification motion seeking to estop the defendants from raising identity defences at trial.
The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal, finding that the summary judgment motion was made on an erroneous basis and that taking "no position" on a motion is fundamentally different from consenting to it.
The court set aside all orders and dismissed the summary judgment motion without prejudice to Unifund's right to renew it.
