Dr. Cheryl Walker

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a chronic pain assessment and a neurological assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that either assessment was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain and lacked objective medical evidence supporting the need for a neurological assessment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and funding for a psychological treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a security guard.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's psychological assessment, which found no ongoing psychological impairment, and concluded the proposed treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

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

The insurer denied medical benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving his injuries were not predominantly minor, as his medical evidence lacked corroboration and was contradicted by the insurer's examination.

The application for assessment costs was dismissed, and the applicant's request for costs was denied due to a lack of evidence of unreasonable conduct by the insurer.