Dr. Charles H. Pierce

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests for chronic pain and psychological assessments, as well as chiropractic and massage treatment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

A psychological treatment plan was partially approved, while a duplicative psychotherapy plan was denied.

The Tribunal declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the respondent reasonably relied on its assessors' opinions, but awarded interest on overdue benefits.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing he should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of psychological impairment and chronic pain to be underwhelming and unsupported by contemporaneous medical records.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, who concluded the applicant suffered only minor soft tissue injuries with no functional limitations.

The Tribunal held the applicant remained within the MIG, dismissed the claims for the treatment plans and interest, and declined to award costs.