Dr. Frank Loritz

The applicant sought a medical and rehabilitation benefit of $12,001.80 for a chronic pain treatment program following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the AMA criteria for chronic pain, noting that he had returned to full-time work, completed a university degree, and maintained social and self-care activities.

The Tribunal concluded the treatment was not reasonable and necessary, dismissing the appeal and the claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a psychological examination and treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant suffered a psychological impairment outside the MIG, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's expert.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the psychological examination and treatment, plus interest, but denied the applicant's claim for a special award for unreasonably delayed payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer examinations which found no objective physical impairments and concluded that the applicant's psychological symptoms were related to pre-existing behavioural issues rather than the accident.

The adjudicator agreed with the respondent's medical experts, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain medical benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that psychological impairments and chronic pain removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which utilized validity indices, over the applicant's assessment, which relied primarily on self-reporting.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his injuries were not predominantly minor, and therefore the disputed medical benefits, interest, and award were not payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and payment for two treatment plans, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 cap had been reached.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft tissue injuries and that he failed to prove his pre-existing conditions or alleged psychological impairments took him out of the MIG.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's psychological expert evidence as unreliable and preferred the respondent's expert evidence.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, dismissing the claim for non-earner benefits.