Dr. C. Goodfield

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

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued he sustained a psychological injury that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found no compelling evidence of a psychological injury, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, as it was more consistent with the clinical notes and the applicant's return to work.

The application for disputed treatment plans, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied two treatment plans for psychological services, relying on an insurer's examination which concluded that the applicant's symptoms were resolving and only a limited number of additional sessions were required.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant had already returned to normal activities and the proposed plans did not reflect his apparent improvements.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and a special award were consequently denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment following a May 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary as a result of the subject accident.

The Tribunal noted significant gaps in the medical records and unrefuted evidence of subsequent intervening accidents, including another motor vehicle accident and a cycling accident, which likely caused the current injuries.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs), the cost of an accountant's report, and medical benefits for assistive devices and psychological treatment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to ongoing IRBs because she had returned to full-time work and was paid her normal salary.

The cost of the accountant's report was deemed unreasonable due to the applicant's failure to provide accurate information regarding collateral benefits.

The claims for assistive devices and further psychological treatment were also dismissed, as the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's examiners, who concluded the items and treatments were not reasonable and necessary given the applicant's functional recovery.