Brittany Tinslay

The applicant insurer sought repayment of an overpayment of interest on medical benefit treatment plans previously ordered by the Tribunal.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the notice requirements under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay the overpayment of $1,652.84, plus interest at the bank rate from 15 days after the initial repayment request.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical, rehabilitation, and income replacement benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and terminated her income replacement benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain or psychological impairment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment or a complete inability to engage in any employment, dismissing her claim for income replacement benefits.

The applicant sought a rehabilitation benefit of $11,865 for private hockey skills training following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim because the expense was incurred before a treatment plan was submitted, contrary to s. 38(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant's failure to submit a treatment plan prior to incurring the expense relieved the respondent of liability.

The Tribunal also held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, and that even if it had jurisdiction, relief would not be warranted.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was also dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying three chiropractic treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made a significant error of law by preferring the respondent's medical expert, who found no objective basis for chronic pain syndrome, over the applicant's expert.

The applicant also sought to introduce a 1995 academic paper as new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the weighing of expert evidence is within the adjudicator's prerogative and did not constitute an error of law.

The Tribunal also refused to admit the academic paper, as it could have been obtained earlier and actually supported the respondent's expert's characterization of chronic pain syndrome.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove he was employed at the time of the accident or that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, noting his continued participation in physical sports and lack of business documentation.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for medical benefits, relying on an insurer's examination report indicating that maximum medical recovery had been achieved and finding insufficient evidence that further chiropractic treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.