Dr. Clewes

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

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was barred from proceeding under s. 55 of the Schedule for failing to attend insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant made himself reasonably available and was not barred.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the accident directly caused the applicant's physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal granted entitlement to the disputed physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, and an occupational therapy in-home assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The claim for psychological treatment was dismissed due to lack of evidence that the applicant utilized previously approved treatment.

The Tribunal declined to order an award under Regulation 664, finding the insurer's conduct did not rise to the requisite level of unreasonableness.

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 applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the physical injuries were sprains and strains falling within the MIG, and rejected the applicant's psychological evidence in favour of the respondent's section 44 psychological assessment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

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 sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied various medical, rehabilitation, attendant care, and non-earner benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting that her medical evidence was unpersuasive and internally contradictory.

Furthermore, the applicant's claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed because her own statements to independent examiners demonstrated she had resumed a significant portion of her pre-accident activities.

The appeal was dismissed.