Dr. Samuel Johnson

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits based on section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial letter complied with the requirement to provide medical reasons under section 37(6) of the Schedule.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's expert reports due to inaccuracies and a failure to account for the applicant's significant pre-existing health conditions and prior accidents.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's section 44 assessors' opinions that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and did not require attendant care.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing his physical injuries and a psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor, noting a lack of compelling and contemporaneous evidence of ongoing complaints.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment, as the applicant had not made psychological complaints to his family doctor and the psychological assessment report was inconsistent with the medical evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were subject to the $3,500 MIG limit and dismissed the application.