Dr. M. Nesterenko

The applicant sought $12,580.00 for a multidisciplinary chronic pain program following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant's current pain complaints were not accident-related and she had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal found the proposed program lacked specificity and the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the applicant's reporting of her injuries and preferred the respondent's medical evidence, which concluded the applicant had achieved maximum medical improvement.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and capped treatment funding at $3,500.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that pre-existing conditions and chronic pain syndrome warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found no compelling evidence of pre-existing conditions that would preclude recovery within the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical examination over the applicant's physiatry report due to internal contradictions in the latter.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered predominantly soft-tissue injuries falling within the minor injury definition.

As the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.