2 total
Applicant removed from Minor Injury Guideline based on uncontested expert diagnoses of chronic pain and adjustment disorder.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied funding for physical therapies and assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The Tribunal found that the applicant's diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome and adjustment disorder, supported by expert assessments, warranted removal from the MIG.
The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the expert assessments should be given less weight merely because the applicant had not complained of these issues to his treating practitioners.
The applicant was awarded all disputed treatment plans and interest.
The court partially granted the plaintiff's motion to compel answers to discovery questions and undertakings regarding road maintenance.
The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative.
The action concerned an accident where the plaintiff's vehicle allegedly dropped into a hole in the road.
The court applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06 and proportionality principles under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Master ruled on each contested question, ordering some to be answered (e.g., reason for representative selection, statutory duty to maintain streets, specific practice manuals, cause of hole) and refusing others (e.g., overly broad requests for manuals, questions about training or budgets not pleaded).
Some undertakings were confirmed as answered, and others were ordered to be completed by consent.
