Dr. S. Baker

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, arguing 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 conditions and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing conditions did not preclude her from achieving maximal medical recovery within the MIG limit.

Applying the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish that she suffered from chronic pain caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was not entitled to the treatment plan or interest.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), various medical benefits for treatment and assessment plans, an award, and interest.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The adjudicator found that the Applicant failed to meet the minimum employment threshold to qualify for IRBs, as there was insufficient evidence she was employed at the time of the accident or for 26 of the 52 weeks preceding it.

Furthermore, the disputed treatment and assessment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, as they were unsupported by compelling medical evidence.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied funding for physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, and a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from vehicular anxiety, a psychological injury that removed him from the MIG.

However, the physical treatment plans were denied as there was no evidence of physical injury.

The psychological assessment was approved subject to the $2,000 statutory limit.

The applicant was struck by a passenger-side door while walking and sought accident benefits.

The respondent determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied a $1,553.76 chiropractic treatment plan because the $3,500 funding limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued they suffered from chronic pain and psychological injuries, which should remove them from the MIG.

The Tribunal found no compelling medical evidence or diagnosis of chronic pain or psychological injury, noting the respondent's physiatry assessment concluded the injuries were minor.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plan and interest were denied.