Dr. McDowall

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries and failed to prove chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, and no benefits or interest were payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and medical benefits for physiotherapy and psychotherapy, after allegedly being struck by a reversing vehicle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove she was employed at the time of the accident or that she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plans, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments which found no objective musculoskeletal or psychological impairments, and noting a lack of contemporaneous complaints in the applicant's medical records.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a medical benefit for physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting a lack of evidence comparing pre- and post-accident activities and significant pre-existing medical conditions.

The Tribunal also found the physiotherapy treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary due to a lack of compelling medical evidence.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The psychological treatment plan lacked necessary details about the providers, and the applicant failed to provide requested information.

The chiropractic treatment plan was not supported by medical evidence, and the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's orthopaedic surgeon who found no objective signs of impairment.

The application was dismissed.