Dr. Biswas

The applicant sought payment for three psychological treatment plans, a special award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the psychological issues were caused by the accident, noting that the treating psychologist's reports focused on family issues and lack of employment.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 assessment, which found insufficient objective evidence of an accident-related psychological impairment, the Tribunal concluded the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and possible rib fractures.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, noting a lack of objective medical evidence, inconsistent self-reporting, and a preference for the respondent's section 44 assessments.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, his claims for treatment plans outside the MIG limits, along with claims for interest and a special award, were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant contended she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing knee pain and accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support that the pre-existing knee condition would prevent recovery within the MIG, or that the applicant suffered a significant psychological impairment.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the disputed treatment plans for psychological, chiropractic, and physiotherapy services were found not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied medical benefits for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and a pre-existing back condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish chronic pain or psychological impairments that would remove her from the MIG, noting that a chiropractor cannot diagnose such conditions and the psychological expert's conclusions contradicted his own testing.

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence that a pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans and assessment were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and payment for two treatment plans, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 cap had been reached.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft tissue injuries and that he failed to prove his pre-existing conditions or alleged psychological impairments took him out of the MIG.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's psychological expert evidence as unreliable and preferred the respondent's expert evidence.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, dismissing the claim for non-earner benefits.