D. Dakota Forster

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

The respondent determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied several treatment plans that proposed treatment outside the MIG limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries were not predominantly minor, as medical evidence indicated only soft-tissue injuries and unrelated health issues.

Because the applicant remained within the MIG and the disputed treatment plans exceeded the MIG limit, the application for the treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

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

The insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied further treatment plans as the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued he suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment, preferring the insurer's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, and since the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision and a reconsideration decision denying her claim for accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

She argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and failed to provide sufficient reasons by not explicitly referring to a medical report from her orthopedic surgeon.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that an adjudicator is not required to refer to every piece of evidence in their reasons, and the reasons provided were detailed and demonstrated a firm grasp of the evidentiary record.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent, alleging she failed to disclose her return to work and receipt of maternity benefits.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not independently inform the insurer of her maternity income or return to work, which constituted an assertion not in accordance with the facts.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay $14,317.80 in overpaid IRBs, plus $250.56 in interest, for a total of $14,568.36.