Dr. F. Loritz

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing their psychological impairments and chronic pain warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence linking the applicant's psychological diagnoses to the accident, relying on a respondent's psychological assessment that noted symptom magnification.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's medical assessment finding no objective functional impairments related to chronic pain.

As the applicant remained subject to the exhausted MIG limits, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were minor and unrelated to the accident, preferring the respondent's medical evidence.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's psychological claims, noting inconsistencies, lack of a translator during assessment, and absence of psychological issues in clinical notes.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed minor and the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, all disputed treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and funding for assessments.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant suffered predominantly minor injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain causing functional impairment, removing her from the Minor Injury Guideline and entitling her to $65,000 in medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal awarded the IRB and the cost of a chronic pain assessment, but denied funding for a psychological assessment and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the test for a non-earner benefit, as she did not provide compelling evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for attendant care benefits because the applicant failed to prove that any such expenses were incurred.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought $2,254.07 for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident, along with an award for unreasonable delay and interest.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting significant gaps in treatment, pre-existing degenerative conditions, and inconsistencies between reported impairments and observed functional capacities.

The Tribunal relied on the insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy, a social work assessment, an in-home assessment, transportation expenses, and the cost of a disability certificate.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found that the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the respondent's independent medical examiners who concluded that the applicant's soft tissue injuries had resolved and that further passive treatment was not warranted.

The transportation expenses were denied due to the 50-kilometre deductible, and the cost of the disability certificate was denied because it was not requested by the insurer or required under the Schedule.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing physical conditions and an exacerbation of psychological injuries, relying on the respondent's own Insurer's Examination reports.

However, the adjudicator dismissed the claims for various treatment plans, finding them not reasonable and necessary because they proposed block fees without specifying the provider or duration of modalities, contrary to the Professional Services Guideline.

Claims for the costs of disability certificates, interest, and costs of the proceeding were also dismissed.