Dr. Greg Gelman

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries were minor.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to provide compelling, corroborating medical evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment.

The adjudicator excluded late-filed clinical notes and records and relied on the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which found symptom exaggeration and no non-minor injuries.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The applicant sought $4,383.90 for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident, along with interest and an award for unreasonable delay.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of corroborating contemporaneous medical evidence in the family doctor's clinical notes.

The application was dismissed, and no interest or award was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies between self-reported limitations and employer records.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for treatment plans, relying on the respondent's section 44 assessments which found no ongoing accident-related impairments warranting the disputed treatments.

Claims for interest, an award, and costs from both parties were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries—including chronic pain, psychological impairments, post-concussive syndrome, and pre-existing conditions—warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence or documentation from treating physicians to substantiate her claims for removal from the MIG.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and the MIG limits were exhausted, her claims for various treatment plans, interest, and a punitive award were dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought various statutory accident benefits including attendant care, multiple treatment plans, and assessments.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing many of the claimed needs arose from a subsequent accident rather than the subject accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to attendant care or most of the treatment plans, as she failed to differentiate her injuries between the two accidents and lacked corroborating recommendations from treating physicians.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to a chronic pain assessment and an MRI, preferring the evidence of the applicant's specialized medical assessor over the respondent's family physician.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's right shoulder pain had developed into a chronic pain condition, satisfying three criteria under the AMA Guides, thereby warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for a psychological assessment and for massage and chiropractic services, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, a proposed chronic pain assessment was denied as the applicant was already under the care of a pain specialist.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.