Dr. Benmoftah

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits and medical/rehabilitation benefits outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, as the evidence did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain or psychological impairment sufficient to remove him from the MIG.

Because the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The claim for income replacement benefits was also dismissed for lack of evidence regarding the applicant's inability to perform essential employment tasks.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including clinical notes and records, did not support functional impairment or a psychological condition caused by the accident.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's expert reports due to inconsistencies and experts opining outside their areas of expertise.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG limits.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by improperly weighing the expert evidence and failing to qualify her expert.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law.

The original decision appropriately gave less weight to the applicant's expert report because it lacked an Acknowledgement of Expert's Duty form and the chronic pain diagnosis was unsupported by other medical evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and treatable within the MIG, noting a lack of compelling medical evidence to support chronic pain or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The application for a chronic pain assessment, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for an orthopaedic assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, relying on an insurer's examination which concluded the assessment was not reasonable and necessary because the applicant was already being treated by an orthopaedic surgeon.

The Tribunal found the applicant's reports of pain were consistent and credible, and that the treating surgeon was only addressing her knee issues, not her whole-body pain.

The Tribunal concluded the orthopaedic assessment was reasonable and necessary to identify the source of her impairments and awarded the cost of $2,260.00 plus interest.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were minor, he sustained a psychological injury that exempted him from the MIG limits.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for a psychological treatment plan and an orthopaedic assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

The evidence, including the applicant's high level of post-accident occupational and social activity, contradicted the need for the proposed psychological treatment, and clinical records did not support ongoing physical impairments requiring further orthopaedic assessment.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was also dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, took him outside the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed psychological and physical treatment plans, as well as the cost of a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for a special award for unreasonably delayed payments was dismissed due to lack of evidence.