Dr. Hanna

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

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

The applicant argued that he should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment (Generalized Anxiety Disorder) and chronic pain with central sensitization.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a psychological impairment, noting that his family doctor consistently recorded his mental health as stable and he did not attend referred group counselling.

The Tribunal also rejected the chronic pain claim, finding that the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain syndrome and that surveillance evidence showed him performing physical activities inconsistent with functional impairment.

As the injuries were deemed predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline due to chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment, relying on the detailed evidence of the applicant's pain management physician.

The Tribunal also awarded non-earner benefits, finding the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, claims for specific treatment plans were dismissed as the applicant failed to make submissions relating the injuries to the proposed treatments.

A claim for an award was also dismissed.

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 applicant claimed removal from the MIG was warranted due to pre-existing conditions, a psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal first dismissed the respondent's motion to exclude late-filed medical evidence, finding the prejudice to the applicant outweighed that to the respondent.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that pre-existing conditions prevented his recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not substantiate his claims of psychological impairment or chronic pain with objective medical evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal held the applicant's injuries were minor, subject to the MIG limits, and he was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on medical assessments indicating the injuries were minor sprains and strains.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to substantiate his claims of chronic pain or a psychological condition.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which found the applicant's physical and psychological symptoms did not meet the threshold for MIG removal.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and his claims for additional treatment plans, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving chronic pain with a functional impairment under the AMA Guidelines, noting normal physical exams and lack of compelling evidence of functional decline.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological condition, citing multiple assessments indicating symptom exaggeration and malingering.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a forklift driver.

The medical evidence, including insurer's examinations, indicated normal physical function and independence in daily activities.

Furthermore, the applicant had declared to the Canada Revenue Agency that he stopped working due to the COVID-19 pandemic and received government benefits, undermining his claim that his inability to work was accident-related.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a chronic pain assessment, chiropractic services, and a chronic pain program.

The insurer denied the benefits, and the Applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not exhibit symptoms typically associated with a chronic pain condition under the AMA Guides and had not established a functional impairment.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's expert evidence, which recommended self-directed exercise, over the Applicant's expert, who failed to review the medical records.

The application was dismissed, and no benefits or interest were awarded.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming costs for a chronic pain assessment and chiropractic treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, noting a significant gap in the applicant's reports of accident-related pain to her family physician and a lack of objective evidence demonstrating functional impairment or the efficacy of past treatments.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome, meeting the criteria under the AMA Guides, and was therefore removed from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for multiple treatment plans for chiropractic and massage therapy, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant was severely injured in a head-on motor vehicle collision and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After exhausting non-catastrophic limits, she sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to further attendant care, housekeeping, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired under Criterion 7, accepting a combined Whole Person Impairment rating of 59% based on physical and mental/behavioral impairments, including a mild traumatic brain injury.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care and housekeeping benefits for incurred amounts, as well as an occupational therapy treatment plan, but dismissed claims for physiotherapy and a special award.

The applicant was also ordered to repay income replacement benefits received while employed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, including an occupational therapy re-assessment and two physiotherapy treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting ongoing physiotherapy and an occupational therapy re-assessment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that he failed to establish a psychological impairment that would remove him from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had already been exhausted, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was not entitled to the claimed treatment plans.

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

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

The applicant argued that a pre-existing disc herniation should remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition would prevent him from achieving maximum medical recovery within the MIG limit.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the injuries were minor soft tissue injuries.

The application was dismissed as the MIG limit had been exhausted.

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

The respondent insurer denied two treatment plans on the basis of an insurer's examination that concluded the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the treating psychologist and other insurer's examiners who noted ongoing pain and psychological disturbance over the physician who erroneously applied the MIG.

The applicant was awarded the claimed medical benefits plus interest.

The applicant was struck by a bus in 2012, sustaining multiple fractures and subsequent psychological impairments.

She applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under two criteria of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under s. 3(2)(e), as her combined physical and psychological impairments rated between 42% and 46%.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was catastrophically impaired under s. 3(2)(f), finding she suffered a marked impairment in the functional areas of social functioning and adaptation due to her accident-related mental and behavioural disorders.

A claim for the cost of a psychiatric paper review was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and massage therapy, as well as a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the chiropractic and massage therapy was reasonable and necessary, citing credibility issues and a lack of objective evidence showing the treatment's effectiveness.

However, the Tribunal approved the chronic pain assessment, finding a reasonable possibility that the applicant's documented physical injuries could result in chronic pain syndrome.

Claims for costs by both parties were dismissed as there was no unreasonable or bad faith conduct.