Dr. Darrell J. Ogilvie-Harris

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for chiropractic services, a chronic pain program, and an orthopaedic assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a concussion, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, finding that the applicant's dizziness pre-dated the accident, his pain complaints were likely degenerative, and his psychological testing was normal.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, and since the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment and assessment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including independent medical examinations, supported that the applicant sustained soft tissue injuries falling within the MIG.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims that she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG, noting her return to work and lack of functional impairment.

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

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing physical and psychological conditions, as well as chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that he failed to prove his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal medical recovery.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of an accident-related psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, and claims for interest and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his physical injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's partial supraspinatus tear and C6 radiculopathy met the definition of minor injuries.

Applying the four-part test for chronic pain, the adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate severe and constant pain or functional impairment sufficient to remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's psychological assessment finding no psychological injury.

As the injuries fell within the MIG and the respondent provided valid denials for the disputed treatment plans, the application was dismissed, and no interest or awards were granted.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain management program and an orthopaedic assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing they were not reasonable or necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, which included diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome and recommendations for multidisciplinary treatment, to be more persuasive than the insurer's assessments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the chronic pain program and the orthopaedic assessment, along with interest on incurred expenses.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under Regulation 664, finding no evidence that the insurer acted unreasonably or in bad faith.