Dr. Ballard

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, interest, and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal excluded late-filed evidence from the applicant due to procedural unfairness.

Applying the Heath test, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting his completion of an educational program and return to work and daily activities.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed he suffered from chronic pain with a functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence to substantiate his claim, while the respondent provided a physiatry examination indicating the injuries were minor and the applicant had no functional impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant remains in the MIG and dismissed the claims for additional treatment plans.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and denied his claim for income replacement benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator ignored relevant caselaw, failed to declare the Minor Injury Guideline of no force and effect, misapplied the 'but for' test for causation, and erred in preferring the respondent's psychological expert over his own.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness or errors of law.

The constitutional challenge lacked required notice, the causation test was correctly applied to find dizziness was pre-existing, and the adjudicator was entitled to prefer the in-person expert assessment over a telephone-based report containing factual errors.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the applicant failed to dispute the denials within the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the insurer provided clear and unequivocal denials, triggering the limitation period, and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant's physical injuries were minor and that she failed to provide compelling evidence of a psychological impairment, chronic pain, or a pre-existing condition that would remove her from the MIG.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB), physiotherapy, catastrophic impairment assessments, and a special award.

The Tribunal found the applicant was substantially unable to perform his pre-accident employment due to chronic pain, entitling him to an IRB up to the 104-week mark.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment, denying him post-104 week IRBs.

The disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy and catastrophic impairment assessments were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer reasonably relied on its medical assessments.