Dr. McDowell

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB), various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, as the psychological evidence relied entirely on self-reporting and lacked objective clinical support.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a real estate agent.

All claims, including requests for interest and an award, were dismissed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment and psychological injuries, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, along with interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the respondent insurer failed to comply with its procedural obligations under s. 36(4) of the Schedule by responding late to the application, and ordered payment of the benefit for the period of non-compliance.

However, for the remaining period, the Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant's evidence lacked objective support, and the respondent's independent examination assessors noted inconsistencies and symptom exaggeration.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were strictly musculoskeletal and that he did not suffer a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's independent examiners over the applicant's occupational therapist and psychotherapist.

The applicant also failed to prove entitlement to a non-earner benefit, as he provided no evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities.

The application was dismissed.