Bianca Marinescu

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including physiotherapy, orthotic devices, and a driving evaluation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy and orthotics were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical recommendations and pre-existing conditions.

The claim for the balance of the driving evaluation was dismissed as the insurer had already approved the statutory maximum.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also 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 she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing right knee and psychological conditions, as well as accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG or that she suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, noting a lack of corroborating clinical notes from her family doctor.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological condition, relying on a psychological assessment conducted via video call.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's in-person psychological assessment, which found no psychological condition, noting it included validity testing and was conducted directly by a psychologist.

The Tribunal held the applicant to the MIG limit and dismissed the claims for disputed treatment plans and interest.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide corroborating medical evidence of accident-related pain or evidence that the proposed chiropractic treatments would relieve such pain.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to warrant a chronic pain assessment, noting the applicant's continued full-time employment and lack of physical deconditioning or social withdrawal.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also 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 claimed to have sustained a psychological injury that would remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

As the applicant remained in the MIG, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and gave limited weight to the applicant's psychological assessment due to reliability issues and lack of contemporaneous medical records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove removal from the MIG or a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a chef.

The application was 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 that psychological impairment and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to discharge his burden of proof, noting inconsistencies in the psychological report and a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting chronic pain or functional limitations.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant sought removal from the MIG based on a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological assessment unreliable as it was based on subjective reporting without corroborating medical records and lacked adequate validity testing.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found the applicant may be attempting to present herself as especially symptomatic.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not prove a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and no interest was owed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, noting a lack of corroborating clinical records from treating physicians to support the psychological diagnosis.

Relying on the respondent's insurer examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest 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 sought removal from the MIG on the basis of psychological impairment, chronic pain, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's pre-screening report.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of accident-related chronic pain or that pre-existing conditions prevented recovery within the MIG.

The application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that physical injuries, psychological impairments, and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were sprains and strains, the psychological claims lacked a formal diagnosis, and the chronic pain claims were unsupported by evidence of functional impairment.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit and medical benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic services.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment and that the proposed treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, preferring the evidence of the respondent's assessors that the applicant's psychological and physical impairments did not meet the substantial inability test, and finding that the applicant had already received adequate treatment for her accident-related injuries.