Dr. D. Saunders

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans 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 chronic pain with functional impairment and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's physiatrist over the applicant's orthopaedic surgeon, finding the latter's report relied entirely on self-reported questionnaires without a thorough physical examination or review of medical records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered soft-tissue injuries within the MIG and failed to prove chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

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

The respondent classified the applicant's injuries as minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit, denying several treatment and assessment plans.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological injuries outside the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were minor and her ongoing pain was related to a pre-existing condition (polymyalgia rheumatica), not the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical experts over the applicant's assessor, concluding the applicant did not sustain accident-related chronic pain or psychological impairments.

The application was dismissed, and no interest or award was granted.

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 statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological complaints and spondylolysis did not warrant removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports over the applicant's psychological assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for additional medical benefits and interest.

Furthermore, the Tribunal awarded $200 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable behaviour, including late filings, adding unpleaded issues, and falsely certifying service of materials.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for caregiver, housekeeping, and attendant care expenses.

The insurer denied the benefits and sought repayment of previously paid benefits, alleging the applicant made material misrepresentations regarding her impairments and the service providers.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered significant psychological impairments, including depression and anxiety, which substantially limited her ability to perform caregiving, housekeeping, and personal care tasks.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's occupational therapy assessment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating psychiatrist and the insurer's own psychologists.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was entitled to the claimed benefits and interest, and dismissed the insurer's claim for repayment, finding no wilful material misrepresentation.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed on procedural fairness grounds.