Dr. Christopher Aldridge

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic left shoulder pain and resulting functional limitations removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist and treating physicians over the respondent's section 44 assessors.

The applicant was awarded all disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and a physiatry assessment, plus interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries, including chronic pain, warranted treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the injuries were minor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove he suffered from non-minor injuries or chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal preferred the comprehensive insurer's examination report over the applicant's medical evidence.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and its $3,500 limit was exhausted, the claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in preferring the respondent's medical evidence over his own experts and in its assessment of his pre-existing back pain and chronic pain.

The adjudicator found no significant error of law or fact, noting that the original decision appropriately weighed the medical evidence, including the timing of the assessments and the applicant's own medical records.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing lower back pain and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a pre-existing condition that would preclude maximal medical recovery within the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical examination which found normal range of motion and no functional limitations.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing chronic shoulder pain and a post-accident chronic pain diagnosis.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical examination, conducted seven months post-accident, over the applicant's assessment conducted 37 months post-accident, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor.

The application was dismissed.