3 total
Applicant's injuries found to fall within the Minor Injury Guideline; claim for massage therapy dismissed.
The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to establish that pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.
As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the claim for massage therapy and interest was dismissed.
Insurer's request for reconsideration dismissed; Tribunal made no error in finding injuries fell outside MIG.
The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that six disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.
The respondent argued the Tribunal made significant errors of law by failing to consider whether the injuries were 'predominately' minor, by ruling in the applicant's favour without submissions on the reasonable and necessary test, and by failing to cite the respondent's case law.
The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal had properly weighed the medical evidence, correctly concluded the applicant sustained a mild traumatic brain injury that was not predominately minor, and was not required to explicitly cite every piece of case law considered.
Applicant's mild traumatic brain injury removed him from the Minor Injury Guideline; treatment and income benefits awarded.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied several treatment plans and income replacement benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a mild traumatic brain injury and psychological impairments, removing him from the MIG.
The Tribunal approved all six disputed treatment plans as reasonable and necessary.
Furthermore, the Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits, finding the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a produce clerk.
The applicant's claim for a special award for unreasonable delay was dismissed due to his own delays in providing documentation.
