Dr. Cavaliere

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant met his onus to be removed from the MIG based on chronic pain with a functional impairment, relying on clinical notes from his family physician and treating specialists.

Consequently, the Tribunal approved three disputed physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, as the applicant provided no submissions to counter the respondent's psychological assessment.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue physiotherapy benefits but declined to order an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, an attendant care assessment, and medication expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical evidence and self-reporting indicated he retained the ability to perform most daily activities, albeit with some diminished capacity.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on a physiatry report and hospital records showing no significant physical injuries.

Claims for medication were dismissed as duplicate receipts, and consequently, claims for interest and a special award were also denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, breached procedural fairness, and made errors of law and fact by rejecting a diagnosis of chronic pain and preferring the respondent's medical evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction to weigh the evidence and determine the severity of the injuries.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was attempting to relitigate the original findings and failed to meet the high threshold for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.