Dr. Jacqueline Auguste

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,000 for the chronic pain assessment and interest on overdue payments, but denied the applicant's claim for an award under Regulation 664 as there was no evidence of unreasonable delay.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy, chiropractic, and massage therapy, relying on an insurer's examination that placed the applicant's injuries within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), despite having previously removed the applicant from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also approved the outstanding $200 for a psychological assessment, finding the difference in estimated hours insignificant.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments but denied an award under Regulation 664, as there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or unreasonable delay by the respondent.

The applicant sought payment for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan, arguing the applicant's physical injuries were minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), although the applicant was removed from the MIG due to psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's orthopaedic assessment which concluded the physical injuries had resolved.

The application for the treatment plan, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an automobile garage owner.

The respondent insurer terminated the benefit and relied on surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's self-reported limitations.

The adjudicator found the applicant's medical evidence relied heavily on his self-reports, which were undermined by surveillance showing him walking without a cane, driving, and bending without visible difficulty.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks.