Dr. Halman

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to $1,130.00 for PRP injections and $2,200 for a psychological assessment, as these were supported by the medical evidence and treating practitioners' recommendations at the time.

However, the Tribunal denied the claims for physical therapy, a chronic pain assessment, and massage therapy, finding that the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary given the lack of objective evidence of efficacy and the duplicative nature of the chronic pain assessment.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and that she failed to demonstrate functionally disabling pain or a diagnosable psychological condition requiring treatment beyond the MIG.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's expert reports, noting the applicant continued to work full-time and lacked corroborating medical evidence for her claims.

As the injuries fell within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the claims for attendant care, medical benefits, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a psychological impairment, chronic pain syndrome, or carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of the accident, and failed to prove a causal link between her severe bilateral neural foraminal stenosis and the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans and assessment were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her physical and psychological impairments removed her from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitled her to an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or severe psychological impairment that would take her injuries outside the MIG.

Furthermore, relying on the respondent's medical assessments, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The application for medical benefits beyond the MIG cap and for an IRB was dismissed.