Dr. Karp

The applicant, a tourist from China, was injured in a motorcoach accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits (ACB) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessors who found normal range of motion and negative response bias over the applicant's outdated and self-report-based assessments.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was not entitled to ACB due to inconsistent evidence regarding incurred expenses and non-compliance with section 33 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits and several treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the attendant care benefits, finding the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred, noting contradictory evidence and a lack of detailed invoices.

The Tribunal also denied treatment plans for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and life skills training, as the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary or payable due to insurer non-compliance.

However, the Tribunal granted the treatment plan for psychological services, finding it reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's progress and ongoing symptoms.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments that fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries warranted treatment beyond the $3,500 MIG cap.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting symptom magnification and a lack of validity testing in the applicant's psychological assessment.

All claims for medical benefits, assessments, interest, and an award were dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied non-earner benefits and certain treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft tissue injuries falling within the MIG, and she failed to prove that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to perform many pre-accident activities.

The disputed chiropractic treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and claims for a special award and interest were dismissed.