Bobby Vujicic

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries had developed into chronic pain, removing her from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant was not continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for a chronic pain program and assessment as reasonable and necessary, but denied claims for a psychological assessment and other medical expenses due to a lack of evidence of psychological impairment and failure to submit proper treatment plans.

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

The respondent denied the claims for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that her physical injuries, including a right knee condition, or her alleged psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the claims for additional medical benefits and interest were dismissed.

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

After the applicant repeatedly failed to attend pre-hearing discussions and failed to communicate with her counsel, her representative brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a material breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The insurer concurrently moved to dismiss the application for arbitration.

The arbitrator granted both motions, removing the representative from the record and dismissing the application for arbitration as frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs to the insurer.