Dr. Bodnar

The applicant, a student, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought non-earner benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer terminated the benefits, relying on section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he was unable to meaningfully and consistently engage in his pre-accident activities, including school and recreational activities, due to ongoing physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's medical evidence over the respondent's assessors, who failed to properly apply the legal test.

The applicant was awarded non-earner benefits and interest, but his claim for a special award was dismissed as there was no evidence the insurer acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

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

The insurer denied a treatment plan for psychological services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for psychological services, preferring the insurer's psychological assessment which found no objective evidence of a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The claim for interest was also dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that he failed to establish a psychological impairment that would remove him from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had already been exhausted, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was not entitled to the claimed treatment plans.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought physiotherapy treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, determining the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, including chronic pain and psychological issues from a prior accident, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions prevented maximal medical recovery within the MIG, noting her medical reports predated the current accident.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, the MIG limits were exhausted, and the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for psychological assessments, psychological treatment, and physiotherapy.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the proposed treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, who found minimal psycho-emotional distress and no objective evidence of physical impairment, over the conflicting and inconsistent reports of the applicant's experts.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle in a parking lot and sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits for chiropractic services.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in employment after the first 104 weeks, relying on independent medical examinations which concluded she could perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The adjudicator also found that the proposed chiropractic treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

All claims, including those for interest and a special award, were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently sustained a disc herniation while performing deadlifts with a personal trainer to strengthen his back.

The respondent denied income replacement benefits, arguing the disc herniation was a separate injury not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test and found the disc herniation was causally connected to the accident, as the applicant was performing the exercises to rehabilitate his accident-related back injury.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment for the first 104 weeks, and a complete inability to engage in suitable employment thereafter.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits and the cost of a vocational assessment.