Dr. A. Marchie

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain with functional impairment and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's physiatrist over the applicant's orthopaedic surgeon, finding the latter's report relied entirely on self-reported questionnaires without a thorough physical examination or review of medical records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered soft-tissue injuries within the MIG and failed to prove chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 physiatry and psychological assessments, the Tribunal concluded there was no objective evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied several treatment and assessment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that pre-existing knee pain, chronic pain, and psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found no compelling evidence that the pre-existing condition precluded recovery, and preferred the respondent's medical assessors over the applicant's assessors regarding chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, was subject to the MIG, and was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans as the funding limit was exhausted.