Dr. F. Ismail

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG or that pre-existing conditions prevented her recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for a non-earner benefit, treatment plans, and a special award, as the applicant provided insufficient evidence to support her claims.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing their injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof, as the medical evidence lacked objective corroboration and failed to establish a causal link between the accident and the alleged psychological symptoms.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 assessment, which found no objective evidence of impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant suffered only soft-tissue physical injuries and failed to establish accident-related chronic pain or psychological impairments that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's expert reports, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

Consequently, the applicant's claims for treatment plans exceeding the $3,500 MIG limit and for interest were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the evidence of the respondent's experts over the applicant's experts.

Because the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG and the $3,500 limit had already been exhausted, the Tribunal concluded it was unnecessary to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the disputed treatment plans.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments but denied the physical treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not need to be removed from the MIG again for physical injuries, but still bore the burden of proving the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

Relying on the respondent's physiatrist assessment and drawing an adverse inference from the applicant's failure to produce clinical notes, the Tribunal concluded the chiropractic treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer's examinations which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and did not suffer from a psychological diagnosis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting inconsistencies in her presentation, a lack of objective medical evidence, and her successful return to full-time employment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, a chronic pain program, a chronic pain assessment, and psychological counselling.

The adjudicator dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as his post-accident limitations were largely similar to his pre-accident condition.

The claims for the chronic pain program and assessment were also dismissed because the applicant had a pre-existing diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome, and the medical evidence failed to establish that the accident materially contributed to it.

However, the adjudicator granted the claim for psychological counselling, finding that the accident materially contributed to an exacerbation of the applicant's pre-existing mental health symptoms, as supported by the respondent's own psychological expert.