Cole O'Reilly

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued his injuries were severe and that a pre-existing back condition precluded his recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, which included sporadic visits to his general practitioner and a failure to act on referrals, insufficient to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the reports of the respondent's independent medical assessors, who concluded the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were treatable within the MIG.

The application for treatment plans beyond the $3,500 limit and for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he suffered a psychological impairment and had a pre-existing condition of scoliosis that precluded recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the physical injuries were predominantly minor and that the applicant failed to establish a psychological injury or a documented pre-existing condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the proposed physiotherapy treatment plan exceeded the $3,500 MIG limit, it was deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to reduced amounts for yoga therapy, occupational therapy services, and an attendant care needs assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary for symptom management and functional improvement.

The Tribunal denied claims for chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment, finding the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery for orthopaedic injuries.

The Tribunal also declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer's conduct was not excessive or imprudent.