Dr. Dubravka Dodig

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a chronic pain treatment program, a neurological examination, and a psychological examination.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and had no ongoing impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's functional abilities, normal gait, and lack of reliance on pain medication undermined the need for the chronic pain program.

Furthermore, previous assessments had already concluded the applicant suffered no neurological or psychological impairments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits after being struck by a detached tire while walking.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the applicant had fully recovered from his physical injuries and was engaging in 'learned helplessness'.

The Tribunal denied claims for attendant care, assistive devices, occupational therapy, and chiropractic treatments, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's expert evidence and exaggerated assessment fees.

The claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed as time-barred and substantively unproven.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The core dispute was whether the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a concussion, pre-existing conditions, psychological injuries, or chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish any of these exceptions, noting that diagnoses were either outside the practitioners' scope, based solely on self-reporting, or lacked objective psychometric testing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to provide a detailed comparison of pre- and post-accident activities as required by the Heath test.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motorcycle accident, along with entitlement to income replacement benefits, medical benefits, an award, and interest.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under either Criterion 6 or 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, preferring the respondent's medical experts and video surveillance evidence over the applicant's experts.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in employment, as he had returned to modified work and performed some DJ work.

The claims for unpaid assessments, assistive devices, an award, and interest were also dismissed.

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

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied a physiotherapy treatment plan and certain expenses.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing her injuries fell outside the MIG due to pre-existing conditions and chronic pain, and sought an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the application was not statute-barred but concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and subject to the MIG limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for the treatment plan, expenses, and the section 10 award, finding the insurer did not act unreasonably.