Dr. Castiglione

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her physical and psychological injuries removed her from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the claims, relying on insurer's examinations that concluded the injuries were soft tissue in nature and fell within the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to prove her injuries warranted treatment outside the MIG, noting that her chiropractic expert's methodology lacked proven reliability and her psychological expert relied heavily on self-reporting.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was a pedestrian whose foot was driven over by a vehicle.

He sought accident benefits, which the respondent denied on the basis that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he sustained a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were minor and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no accident-related psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the requested psychological assessment and interest were denied.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the ongoing complaints were related to pre-existing conditions, including fibromyalgia.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to remove her from the MIG or to prove that the accident aggravated her pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal concluded that the claimed benefits were not reasonable and necessary, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, who has autism, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, primarily for chiropractic services, as well as interest and an award under Regulation 664.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her ongoing neck, shoulder, and back pain were caused by the accident.

Relying on insurer examination reports, the adjudicator concluded that the requested treatments were neither reasonable nor necessary, and consequently denied the claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for two orthopaedic assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the assessments were reasonable and necessary, noting the absence of the actual treatment plans in evidence and preferring the insurer's medical evidence that the applicant suffered only soft tissue injuries.

The appeal was dismissed.