Brittanny Tinslay

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment.

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not been diagnosed with chronic pain syndrome and failed to prove that her ongoing pain was accompanied by functional impairment or disability.

As the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for acupuncture and physiotherapy services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving the treatments were reasonable and necessary, as she did not submit the disputed treatment plans in evidence and her own family doctor's notes indicated significant physical improvement.

The respondent's medical assessor also concluded there were no ongoing musculoskeletal impairments.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

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

After the applicant's representative was removed from the record, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing despite receiving notice.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application for non-attendance.

The arbitrator granted the motion, dismissing the application and ordering the applicant to pay $1,400 in expenses to the insurer.

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

During a case conference, the applicant sought to withdraw the application, prompting the respondent insurer to bring a motion for costs, arguing the applicant acted frivolously by proceeding without supporting evidence.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the costs motion despite the withdrawal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, concluding the applicant had a bona fide reason to dispute the claim denial and did not act frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith.

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

Disputes arose and the applicant applied for arbitration.

The applicant's counsel was removed from the record at a pre-hearing discussion due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing despite receiving notice.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits and provided no evidence, the arbitrator dismissed the arbitration.