Dr. Naiman

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's medical evidence, including a chronic pain assessment, relied heavily on subjective reporting and was contradicted by contemporaneous clinical notes showing a return to work and physical activities.

Relying on the insurer's examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered from uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and failed to meet the burden for removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing shoulder and back pain, as well as chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that any pre-existing condition would prevent recovery within the MIG and concluded the applicant did not meet the burden of proving chronic pain.

Relying on the insurer's medical examination, the Tribunal held the impairments were predominantly minor.

Consequently, the claims for four physiotherapy treatment plans and interest were dismissed as they exceeded the MIG limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatments and brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of the applicant's reply submissions for improperly introducing new evidence.

The Tribunal partially granted the motion to strike, removing new arguments and evidence that should have been in the initial submissions.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the physiotherapy treatment plan reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's credible self-reporting of pain relief, despite the medical assessors not explicitly recommending it.

The claim for the balance of the chiropractic treatment plan was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove that the proposed exercises required the supervision of a chiropractor.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, an award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she did not provide sufficient evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities or demonstrating how her impairments practically prevented her from engaging in her daily routines.

The applicant was able to travel, perform self-care, and drive.

Consequently, the claims for the non-earner benefit, award, and interest were dismissed.