Dr. Nancy Abram

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting the absence of evidence supporting chronic pain or psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant failed to prove the quantum payable for the pre-104-week period and failed to meet the strict 'complete inability' test for the post-104-week period.

Claims for treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought $21,800 for a series of assessments to determine catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the proposed psychiatric, occupational therapy, orthopaedic, neurological, and functional abilities assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence did not establish that the applicant's pain, mental health conditions, or functional limitations were caused by the accident or warranted the requested assessments.

The application for benefits and a claim for an award were dismissed.

The applicants, the spouse and children of an individual who developed psychological impairments after witnessing a fatal motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicants did not meet the definition of an 'insured person' under section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the accident victim did not sustain a physical injury in the accident, which is a prerequisite for family members to claim benefits for psychological or mental injuries.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

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

The respondent denied certain chiropractic treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing back and neck pain, chronic pain, and psychological issues.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to establish a pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, applying the AMA criteria, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied income replacement benefits, a medical benefit, and the cost of a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were not minor, as he suffered from a psychological impairment and chronic pain syndrome that could not be treated within the $3,500 MIG limit.

The Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits up to the 104-week mark, finding the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal also awarded the cost of a psychological assessment but denied the remaining balance for a physiotherapy treatment plan because the massage therapy rate exceeded the FSCO guideline limit.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the insurer, including the cost of a worksite assessment.

The insurer denied the assessment and took the position that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found that the worksite assessment was not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant had only missed one day of work and had not claimed income replacement benefits.

Furthermore, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to establish that his injuries, including alleged chronic pain and a subsequent left knee impairment, fell outside the MIG.

The applicant's claims were dismissed.