3 total
Post-104 week IRBs awarded due to accident-exacerbated shoulder injury; most treatment plans denied for insufficient evidence.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.
The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited due to a severe shoulder injury requiring surgery, exacerbated by the accident, and awarded IRBs at the optional rate of $1,000 per week.
The Tribunal denied most of the disputed treatment plans for lack of supporting medical evidence, but approved a vocational assessment relevant to the IRB claim.
The request for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's denial was not found to be unreasonable, though interest was awarded on overdue benefits.
Application for accident benefits dismissed; injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and IRB test not met.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The applicant claimed entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), chiropractic services, and a chronic pain assessment.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to establish that his pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.
Furthermore, the applicant did not prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a plumber's apprentice.
The application was dismissed, and no further benefits or interest were awarded.
Accident benefits denied where surveillance and inconsistent evidence undermined applicant's claims of disability and income loss.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and medical benefits, following an ebike collision.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence regarding her pre-accident income and inability to work lacked credibility and was contradicted by surveillance evidence showing her working and riding her ebike.
The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered predominantly minor injuries subject to the $3,500 treatment cap, which had been exhausted, and that the requested treatment plans were not reasonable or necessary.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.