Dr. Rees Lewis

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

The respondent insurer denied funding for psychological assessments and treatment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injuries Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from a psychological injury, specifically a situational phobia related to driving and being a passenger, which warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's expert, noting the former's reliance on thorough psychometric testing.

The disputed treatment plans for psychological services were deemed reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the incurred assessment cost but not on the un-incurred treatment plan.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as an early childhood educator due to psychological and physical impairments.

The insurer denied the claim based on multiple insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, noting that her own treating psychiatrist's records indicated her depression and post-concussion syndrome had largely resolved.

The appeal for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought income replacement benefits and funding for chronic pain and physiatry assessments from her insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, relying on independent medical examinations that found no physical or psychological contraindications to her return to work.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the assessments, finding them not reasonable and necessary given the lack of objective medical evidence supporting ongoing impairment and the applicant's self-reported improvements and return to work as a personal support worker.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and the cost of an orthopaedic assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits based on insurer examinations and surveillance video, arguing the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment as a truck driver assistant and that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological impairments, combined with the heavy physical demands of his pre-accident employment, entitled him to IRBs.

The Tribunal also found the orthopaedic assessment was reasonable and necessary as the applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.