Dr. Belfon

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

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor, her psychological diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood justified removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved a psychological assessment as reasonable and necessary, but denied the proposed chiropractic treatment plans, finding the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery for her physical impairments.

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

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended that psychological impairments and chronic pain removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from psychological impairments or chronic pain caused by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and treatable within the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit as he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, nor was the proposed chiropractic treatment reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer initially denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), but later conceded the injuries were outside the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the disputed treatment plans for assistive devices, chiropractic treatment, and a functional abilities evaluation were reasonable and necessary to manage the applicant's ongoing pain and assist her in her self-employment.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the disputed benefits with interest, but declined to order a special award as the insurer's delay did not prejudice the applicant.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, consisting of sprains and strains.

Although the applicant had a documented pre-existing condition, there was no medical evidence demonstrating that this condition prevented him from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

The applicants, a mother and son, sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The mother claimed caregiver, housekeeping, and medical benefits, while the son claimed income replacement and medical benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding severe credibility issues with both applicants' evidence.

The mother's testimony regarding the children she cared for, her residential address, and her employment of a caregiver was riddled with inconsistencies and contradicted by documentary evidence.

The son's evidence regarding his pre-accident employment and income was also found to be unreliable.

The insurer's medical assessments, which concluded the son's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, were accepted.