Dr. Paul Bruni

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and assessments 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 psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including reports from a chiropractor and a psychological assessment, lacked weight and corroboration.

Relying on the respondent's insurer's examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a psychological impairment or meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairments, and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish functional impairment from chronic pain or a diagnosable psychological disorder, keeping her within the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were not payable.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding insufficient evidence of a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

Claims for an award and costs were both dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological, and neurological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, preferring the evidence of the respondent's independent medical examiners and the applicant's own family physician over the applicant's chiropractor and nurse.

The Tribunal held the applicant remained within the MIG and was therefore not entitled to an attendant care benefit.

While one of the respondent's denial letters breached s. 38(8) of the Schedule, no payment was ordered as there was no evidence the services were incurred.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, rejecting his chiropractor's diagnoses of chronic pain and concussion as outside the practitioner's expertise.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's physiatry assessment that the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters complied with the notice requirements under the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment as a result of the accident, entitling her to treatment outside the MIG framework.

The Tribunal partially approved a treatment plan for massage therapy and fully approved a psychological assessment, but denied the remaining claims for physical therapy and various other assessments due to lack of evidence of reasonableness and necessity.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.