Dr. Jacqueline Brunshaw

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found his injuries were predominantly minor under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and denied three treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made errors of fact and law by giving little weight to his medical expert's diagnosis of chronic pain, and that the adjudicator's interpretation of the evidence raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that weighing evidence is a core adjudicative function and that the adjudicator's analysis did not constitute an error of law or fact.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various treatment plans for chiropractic, psychological, and chronic pain services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the cost of personal protective equipment was not covered, the proposed hourly rate for a psychotherapist was not justified, and the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, concluding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain and that her ongoing knee issues were related to pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

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 sought removal from the MIG on the basis of psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective medical evidence to support a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment caused by the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the claims for further medical benefits, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of chronic pain syndrome or psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 assessments, which found the applicant's injuries were minor and did not result in functional impairment.

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

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to an income replacement benefit and various treatment plans.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing low back pain was exacerbated by the accident or that she sustained a psychological injury.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychiatric assessment over the applicant's psychological report, which contained factual misstatements regarding her pre-accident employment and the timing of her husband's death.

The application was dismissed, as the injuries were predominantly minor and the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft tissue in nature and that she failed to provide compelling evidence of chronic pain, psychological impairment, or pre-existing conditions that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the proposed treatment plans exceeded the MIG limit, the application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his chronic pain, psychological impairments, or pre-existing conditions warranted removal from the MIG, noting that his chronic back pain and functional limitations pre-dated the accident and were not exacerbated by it.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life as his pre-accident activities were already severely limited by a prior accident.

All claims for treatment plans, assessments, interest, and an award were dismissed.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairment, pre-existing conditions, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting a lack of psychological complaints to her family doctor for over two years post-accident and placing greater weight on the insurer's psychological assessment which included validity testing.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain, exacerbation of pre-existing neck and shoulder conditions, and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain, lacked compelling evidence of exacerbated pre-existing conditions, and preferred the respondent's psychiatric assessment over the applicant's psychological report.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, and since the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for further treatment plans and assessments was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming treatment plans for psychological services and chronic pain management.

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

The Tribunal noted the applicant's immediate return to work, lack of referrals from his family physician, and the insurer's examinations which found no accident-related psychological or physical impairments requiring the proposed treatments.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal excluded the applicant's late-filed psychological report due to prejudice.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, preferring the respondent's expert who conducted an in-person physical assessment over the applicant's expert who conducted a virtual assessment.

The claims for physiotherapy, an orthopedic assessment, an award, and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied several treatment plans as the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support chronic pain or a psychological impairment, noting the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft-tissue and had largely resolved.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant remained within the MIG, dismissing the claims for treatment plans, interest, and an award.

The respondent's request for costs due to late submissions was also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to a treatment plan for chiropractic, massage therapy, and acupuncture, as well as a psychological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the physical treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary because the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and had not reported physical complaints to her family physician for over a year.

The Tribunal also denied the psychological assessment, concluding it would be duplicative of an already completed and comprehensive driver rehabilitation evaluation that adequately addressed her primary psychological complaint of driving anxiety.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were consequently dismissed.

Both parties requested reconsideration of a decision regarding entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by admitting college records and failing to address a costs request, and made errors of fact and law in weighing medical evidence.

The Respondent argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Schedule regarding assessment fee limits.

The Tribunal granted the Applicant's request in part to address the omitted costs request, which was ultimately denied, and dismissed all other grounds for reconsideration, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

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

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

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including expert reports, unreliable and inconsistent with his family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, concluding the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted treatment beyond the MIG.

As the MIG limits were nearly exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied and the application was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed an Associate Judge's order requiring her to attend three independent medical examinations, re-attend discovery, and restricting her counsel from communicating with defence experts.

The defendants cross-appealed the denial of a pleading amendment alleging the plaintiff was a 'sophisticated litigant' who might exaggerate her claims.

The Superior Court upheld the denial of the pleading amendment, the discovery re-attendance, and the neuropsychological examination.

However, the court set aside the orders for orthopedic and vocational assessments due to insufficient evidence and lack of jurisdiction for the Associate Judge to order an assessment by a non-health practitioner.

The restriction on counsel communicating with defence experts was upheld but varied to expire once the expert report is completed.