Dr. I. Horseman

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for five chiropractic treatment plans following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans, arguing the applicant's symptoms were a continuation of pre-existing injuries from a 2011 accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant had returned to her pre-accident health status shortly after the 2015 accident and that her ongoing difficulties at work were primarily cognitive, not related to the subject accident.

The adjudicator concluded the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, and dismissed the claims for benefits, interest, and an award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for two chiropractic treatment plans totaling $8,320.00 following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant predominantly suffered psychological injuries rather than the claimed neurological and concussion-related injuries.

Relying on the insurer's medical examinations, the Tribunal concluded the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for two chiropractic treatment plans totaling $8,320, claiming she suffered post-concussion syndrome and a WAD 3 injury from a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical examinations, which found no neurological signs or concussion related to the accident, over the applicant's medical reports, which lacked objective testing and were temporally removed from the treatment plans.