Dr. Frank

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent insurer on the basis that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a psychological impairment, a pre-existing anxiety disorder, and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a psychological impairment, as the psychological reports relied on self-reporting and ignored his pre-existing history.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence that his pre-existing anxiety precluded recovery within the MIG or that he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was denied the disputed treatment plans and interest.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from psychological impairments, including somatic symptom disorder and adjustment disorder, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal denied the claim for physiotherapy services as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal approved a psychological assessment up to the Schedule limit of $2,200.00 and a psychological treatment plan for $5,668.28, along with interest on overdue payments.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict awarding net general damages of $11,181.03, the court considered whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff, whose primary role was a homemaker, sustained permanent and serious impairments to important physical and psychological functions, including PTSD and depression.

The court ruled that the injuries met the threshold and dismissed the defendant's motion.

The respondent was assaulted at work and claimed benefits for traumatic vertebrobasilar ischemia (TVBI).

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denied the claim, preferring medical evidence that the assault did not cause TVBI.

The Tribunal later upheld its decision on reconsideration after reviewing new evidence from a co-worker.

The Divisional Court quashed the reconsideration decision as patently unreasonable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence, resolved the conflicting medical opinions, and reached a reasonable conclusion.