Dr. R. Lam

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment, placing significant weight on the respondent's insurer's examinations which concluded the injuries were soft-tissue in nature.

The application was dismissed, as the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted.

The applicant sought a Non-Earner Benefit (NEB) and various medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's life was affected by the accident, she did not suffer a 'complete inability to carry on a normal life' as she continued to engage in substantially all of her pre-accident caregiving activities, albeit with some restrictions and assistance.

The Tribunal approved two physiotherapy treatment plans and an orthopaedic assessment as reasonable and necessary, but denied a third physiotherapy plan, a psychotherapy plan, and a claim for a special award.

Interest was awarded on the approved incurred expenses.

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

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of psychological injuries, chronic pain, or pre-existing conditions that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, is subject to the $3,500 funding limit, and is not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, interest, or an award.