Dr. Johan Reis

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to non-earner benefits and funding for psychological services, relying on a psychological assessment diagnosing him with major depressive disorder and PTSD.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide corroborating medical evidence, such as clinical notes and records, to establish non-minor physical or psychological impairments.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's psychological assessment, which found the applicant's symptoms did not meet DSM-5 criteria.

The claim for non-earner benefits was also dismissed due to a lack of evidence regarding the applicant's pre-accident activities and objective medical evidence demonstrating a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for the first 104 weeks.

She sought post-104-week IRBs, arguing she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to cognitive and physical impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had successfully worked as a restorative aide for approximately 10 months post-accident, working full-time and overtime hours.

Relying on this work history and the preferred expert medical and vocational evidence, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The claims for IRBs, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) and funding for physiotherapy and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to significant inconsistencies in his self-reports regarding employment and daily activities.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's physiatry assessment over the applicant's evidence, concluding the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and funding for a neuropsychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she had resumed many pre-accident activities including driving and part-time work.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plan, preferring the respondent's expert evidence that there was no indication of a traumatic brain injury to justify the neuropsychological assessments.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.