Dr. Brunshaw

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 from chronic pain and a psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish functionally disabling pain, noting his active lifestyle and lack of objective medical evidence.

The Tribunal also afforded diminished weight to the applicant's psychological assessment due to its heavy reliance on self-reporting and inconsistency with objective scores.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, an award, or interest.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a concussion and psychological impairment, as well as entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not support a concussion or psychological impairment, keeping the applicant within the MIG and denying the treatment plans.

Although the applicant failed to meet the substantive test for IRBs, the Tribunal awarded IRBs from February 27, 2023, to April 14, 2023, because the insurer failed to respond to the disability certificate within the required 10 business days under s. 36(4) of the Schedule.

Claims for an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), various treatment plans, an award, and interest.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were related to pre-existing conditions and did not cause a substantial or complete inability to work.

The Tribunal applied the "but for" test and found the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal held the applicant was entitled to IRBs for both the pre-104 and post-104 periods, finding he suffered a complete inability to engage in reasonably suited employment due to his physical limitations, age, and lack of transferable skills.

The Tribunal also approved several treatment plans for psychological, chronic pain, and functional assessments, but denied others lacking evidentiary support.

The claim for an award was dismissed as the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable, but interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from a psychological impairment and chronic pain, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for an attendant care assessment, psychological services, physiotherapy, and a lumbar back brace, finding them reasonable and necessary.

A psychological assessment was denied as redundant.

The Tribunal also awarded interest on overdue benefits but dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award, finding the respondent relied on expert opinions and did not unreasonably withhold payments.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a concussion and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that her concussion symptoms arose from a subsequent accident.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's psychological evidence as unpersuasive because it conflated the two accidents and relied solely on self-reporting.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was denied the disputed physiotherapy treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and several treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for the non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, largely due to unreliable self-reporting and significant pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for a neurological assessment and psychological services as not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a chronic pain assessment because the respondent's denial notices were confusing and failed to comply with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal awarded an income replacement benefit (IRB) for the pre-104 week period, finding the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a general labourer.

The Tribunal also approved treatment plans for psychological services and assessments, but denied plans for chiropractic and massage therapy.

Interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological injuries and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a psychological injury, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, and noted a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting chronic pain.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, subject to the MIG limit, and dismissed the claims for psychological treatment, assessment, and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain assessment and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that either assessment was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, which included in-person assessments and psychometric testing, over the applicant's evidence, which relied on phone screens and lacked corroborating medical records.

The application was dismissed, and claims for a special award and interest were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments, as well as entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and fell within the MIG, noting inconsistencies in her medical records and self-reports.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors over the applicant's experts.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding insufficient evidence of a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, and denied claims for interest and an award.

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, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and several treatment plans for psychological, chiropractic, and chronic pain assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain, neuropathic symptomatology, or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits as the applicant provided no submissions or evidence to support a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

All claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer classified his injuries under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied various treatment plans and income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant developed a chronic pain condition, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved a chronic pain assessment plan but denied a psychological assessment and a chronic pain treatment plan, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

The claim for IRBs was also dismissed as the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a cabinet maker.

The applicant sought statutory 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 failed to provide compelling evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to justify removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The claims for a non-earner benefit and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of treatment plans for physical therapy, a chronic pain assessment, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's medical evidence that the physical injuries had resolved and that the requested psychological treatment exceeded what was warranted.

The claims for an award and interest were also dismissed as no benefits were found to be outstanding.