Dr. Corbin

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying an award for the respondent's alleged unreasonable withholding of income replacement benefits and costs.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in relying on the respondent's expert testimony and failing to consider the applicant's overall condition.

The Tribunal found no material error of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, noting that the respondent appropriately adjusted the claim and reasonably relied on its medical assessors.

The request for reconsideration was 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 sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he was removed from the MIG due to a neurological impairment (sciatica) and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a concussion, sciatica, or a psychological impairment caused by the accident, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury, and because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied two treatment plans for assessments.

The Divisional Court held that the adjudicator made no error of law and reasonably concluded that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to benefits beyond the MIG cap.

The appeal was dismissed.