Dr. David Brooks

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's soft-tissue injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to establish that pre-existing conditions or accident-related chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant had resumed substantially all of his pre-accident activities.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claims for interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including transportation services, chiropractic services, and psychological assessments and services.

The respondent denied or partially approved the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant did not provide sufficient medical evidence to support the need for transportation expenses, facility-based chiropractic treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline, or extended psychological sessions.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied medical benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit and denied an income replacement benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that she failed to establish a chronic pain condition that would remove her from the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed medical benefits were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit, finding that the applicant's inability to work was due to her pre-planned return to full-time studies and the pandemic, rather than an accident-related impairment.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the termination of his income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, including left shoulder bursitis, were minor and not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim of chronic pain syndrome, giving little weight to his medical expert's report due to a lack of analysis and missing medical history.

The Tribunal also drew an adverse inference from the applicant's failure to produce relevant employment and medical records.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries were subject to the MIG limit, which had been exhausted, and that he failed to prove entitlement to IRBs.