Dr. Waiser

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant's claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed as she did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Several treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, and a chronic pain assessment were approved as reasonable and necessary, while others were denied for lack of contemporaneous medical evidence.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and several treatment plans for psychological, chiropractic, and chronic pain assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain, neuropathic symptomatology, or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits as the applicant provided no submissions or evidence to support a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

All claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to an income replacement benefit and several treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the income replacement benefit, arguing that the applicant's inability to work was due to congestive heart failure, a stroke, and cardiac arrhythmia that were not caused by the accident.

The adjudicator applied the 'but for' test and found that the applicant failed to establish a causal link between the accident and his subsequent cardiac and neurological conditions.

Consequently, the claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed.

However, the adjudicator found that the applicant was entitled to medical benefits for chiropractic and psychological services, as well as the cost of an attendant care assessment, because these were reasonable and necessary to treat accident-related impairments.

A treatment plan for other goods and services was denied.