Dr. Sharleen McDowell

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, preferring the respondent's in-person medical assessments which demonstrated the applicant continued to engage in the vast majority of his pre-accident activities, including household chores and personal care.

The applicant's claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed as no benefits were payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), non-earner benefits, and funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and denied the request for a section 10 award.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from psychological impairments, including PTSD and major depressive disorder, which warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed psychological services and assessment, along with interest.

The applicant's claim for a special award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a $2,200 psychological assessment, a special award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's psychological evidence, noting it relied on self-reporting that was contradicted by surveillance footage showing the applicant driving frequently and engaging in various activities.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer examination, which found no psychological symptoms warranting further investigation.

The applicant sought a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 and interest, alleging the respondent unreasonably delayed removing her from the Minor Injury Guideline and approving treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding the respondent's actions were not unreasonable because the applicant failed to provide requested pre-accident and updated clinical notes and records in a timely manner.

Without these records, the respondent could not properly assess whether the applicant's psychological impairments were caused by the accident or pre-existing marital issues.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments, including symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder and Specific Phobia, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the treatment plan for a psychological assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary based on objective medical evidence.

However, the Tribunal denied the treatment plan for physiotherapy services, as the applicant failed to provide sufficient contemporaneous medical evidence of an ongoing physical impairment.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and funding for two psychological treatment plans following two motor vehicle accidents.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal also denied the outstanding balance of the first psychological treatment plan.

However, the Tribunal partially approved the second psychological treatment plan for $1,696.13, preferring the recommendation of the respondent's own assessor who suggested an additional block of sessions to consolidate treatment gains.

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

The respondent approved a portion of a psychological assessment plan but denied the remaining balance of $803.12.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispute the denial.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the unapproved balance was reasonable and necessary, as the assessment plan lacked a breakdown of the methodologies, time required, and hourly rates.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 assessment, which concluded that the approved amount was reasonable based on the Professional Services Guideline.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal applied the Heath test and found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidence showed he had resumed many activities, albeit with some modifications.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant failed to establish chronic pain, she provided uncontested psychological evidence diagnosing her with Major Depressive Disorder and a travel phobia, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal awarded the cost of a psychological assessment and an outstanding balance for chiropractic treatment, with interest, but denied further chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans for lack of objective medical evidence establishing ongoing physical impairments.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying her income replacement benefits beyond 104 weeks post-accident, relying on four new multidisciplinary reports as new evidence under Rule 18.2(d).

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the reports could have been obtained prior to the release of the original decision and that the applicant made a tactical decision not to seek an adjournment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the new evidence would not have affected the result, as the reports relied on self-reporting that was contradicted by surveillance evidence showing the applicant engaging in various activities.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence to establish any of these exceptions, preferring the objective evidence of the insurer's examiners over the applicant's self-reported symptoms and clinical impressions.

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

The appeal was denied.