3 total
Applicant denied non-earner benefits but awarded partial medical benefits for chiropractic and psychological assessments.
The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought non-earner benefits (NEBs) and various medical benefits from the respondent insurer.
The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical evidence and independent examinations showed she remained generally functional.
The Tribunal denied NEBs and several treatment plans, but granted entitlement to one chiropractic treatment plan and the full cost of a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.
Interest was awarded on the overdue payments for the approved plans.
Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline; claims for additional medical benefits dismissed.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent determined the applicant sustained a minor injury and was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500, denying several treatment plans.
The applicant argued his psychological impairments and chronic pain removed him from the MIG.
The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence inconsistent and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which concluded the impairments were minor.
The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain under the AMA Guides and had achieved full functional recovery.
As the applicant sustained a minor injury and had exhausted the MIG funding limit, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.
Insurer ordered to pay ongoing income replacement benefits to tow truck driver disabled by accident-aggravated chronic pain.
The applicant, a tow truck driver, was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs).
The insurer terminated the IRBs after eight months, arguing that the applicant's ongoing pain was due to pre-existing degenerative disc disease rather than the accident.
The Tribunal found the applicant credible and preferred the evidence of his treating specialists over the insurer's expert, concluding that the accident aggravated his underlying condition and caused chronic pain and radiculopathy.
The Tribunal held that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the heavy physical duties of his pre-accident employment and was therefore entitled to ongoing IRBs.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.