Dr. Goldhawk

The applicant sought a determination that her injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claimed entitlement to several treatment plans.

She argued that a pre-existing foot injury, concussion, psychological issues, chronic pain, and radiculopathy warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that her pre-existing condition prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain or establish that her other conditions took her outside the MIG.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, she was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and sought payment for various treatment and assessment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his accident details and symptoms lacked credibility, noting significant inconsistencies and a failure to disclose his return to full-time work.

The Tribunal approved an occupational therapy assessment, a psychological assessment, and assistive devices, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, claims for ongoing chiropractic care, chronic pain programs, a neurocognitive assessment, and a vocational assessment were dismissed due to lack of credible evidence supporting their necessity and the applicant's pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a lump sum award, finding that the applicant's own refusal to attend insurer's examinations mitigated any delay by the insurer.

Aviva Canada appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the claimant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a diagnosis of chronic pain.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator erred in law by failing to apply the proper test from Scarlett.

Specifically, the arbitrator did not analyze whether the chronic pain was a 'clinically associated sequela' of the initial minor soft tissue injuries.

The Delegate substituted an order finding the injuries fell within the MIG.

A secondary ground of appeal regarding the late admission of expert reports was dismissed because Aviva had elected to proceed with the hearing rather than adjourn.