Dr. Boulias

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she did not meet the test for IRBs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to prove substantive entitlement to IRBs or to establish impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's procedural arguments that the insurer's denial notices were non-compliant with the Schedule.

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

The respondent insurer denied four treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered minor soft tissue injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's section 44 medical assessments, which found the applicant had returned to work and normal activities, and noted a lack of corroborating clinical records for the applicant's self-reported symptoms.

The application was dismissed, and the treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

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

The applicant argued her injuries warranted treatment beyond the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly soft tissue in nature and fell squarely within the definition of minor injuries.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of chronic pain syndrome or psychological impairment.

The application for medical benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for two chiropractic treatment plans totaling approximately $7,100.

The respondent insurer denied the plans, arguing the applicant had reached maximum recovery and further facility-based treatment was not medically indicated.

The Tribunal found the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the clinical records of the applicant's treating family physician over the respondent's independent medical assessors.

The Tribunal noted the applicant experienced ongoing pain that improved with physical therapy.

The applicant was awarded entitlement to both treatment plans with interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain syndrome and a psychological impairment, relying on a chiropractor's report.

The Tribunal found the chiropractor's psychological diagnosis was outside his scope of expertise and unsupported by objective medical evidence.

Preferring the respondent's physiatry assessment, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The claims for additional chiropractic treatment and interest were dismissed.