Dr. Eugene Hewchuk

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

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

The applicant sought removal from the MIG on the basis of psychological impairment, chronic pain, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's pre-screening report.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of accident-related chronic pain or that pre-existing conditions prevented recovery within the MIG.

The application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for a non-earner benefit and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator committed breaches of procedural fairness, made errors of law and fact, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate his case, failed to properly pinpoint evidence in his submissions as required by the case conference order, and did not establish any procedural unfairness or errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

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 that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's independent medical examination reports, noting the applicant had stopped working prior to the accident due to stress and reduced hours.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's notices and denials substantially complied with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and denied the claims for interest and a special award.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence that his physical or psychological injuries were non-minor or that pre-existing conditions precluded his recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer's examinations, which concluded the applicant suffered no psychological impairments and only minor physical injuries.

As the MIG limits had been exhausted, the proposed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for psychological and physical therapy services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to demonstrate that his physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's evidence, noting a lack of objective findings and symptom magnification.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued her physical injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and she failed to provide a medical diagnosis of chronic pain.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no clinically significant accident-related psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were found not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits (NEBs) and medical benefits for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to severe psychological impairment resulting from the accident, which continuously prevented her from engaging in her pre-accident activities of caring for her children and pursuing her vocational goals.

The Tribunal awarded NEBs of $185.00 per week and interest.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment, finding insufficient evidence that they were reasonable and necessary, as the applicant's impairment was fundamentally psychological rather than physical.