Dr. Beseman

The applicant sought medical benefits for three physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans, arguing the applicant could perform self-directed exercises.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain as a result of the accident, relying on the consensus of treating doctors and independent assessors.

The Tribunal concluded that the first and third treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to reduce pain and increase functionality, but denied the second plan as a duplication.

The Tribunal also admitted late-served surveillance evidence but gave it no weight, as it did not contradict the applicant's reported deterioration without treatment.

The applicant sought dispute resolution at the Licence Appeal Tribunal after being denied post-104 week income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and costs of examinations following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that while the applicant suffered physical impairments from the accident, he did not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's vocational evidence, finding the applicant could work as a delivery driver.

The adjudicator also found the applicant's psychological issues were caused by subsequent life stressors, not the accident.

The claims for medical benefits and assessments were dismissed as not reasonable or necessary.