Dr. J. Auguste

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits and medical benefits, following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant to be an unreliable witness who misrepresented her post-accident employment status.

The applicant's claim for a chiropractic treatment plan was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The claims for income replacement benefits and other medical benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform her employment tasks or that the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent insurer denied multiple treatment plans for chiropractic care, assistive devices including a tablet and mattress, and various medical assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's ongoing complaints were attributable to pre-existing degenerative changes rather than the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, concluding that the proposed goods and services were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that his physical injuries, alleged pre-existing conditions, or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for additional physiotherapy and psychological assessments were dismissed, along with claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found the applicant to be a poor historian whose self-reported limitations were inconsistent with contemporaneous medical records.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, concluding that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, did not incur attendant care expenses, and failed to prove the claimed medical benefits were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit, medical benefits, and assessment costs.

The insurer initially denied the claims on the basis of the Minor Injury Guideline but later conceded the injuries were non-minor.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit because she continued to engage in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, despite some limitations.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and the costs of psychological, occupational therapy, and chronic pain assessments, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she was able to drive and travel internationally post-accident.

The Tribunal also denied attendant care benefits, preferring the respondent's detailed assessments over the applicant's unsupported occupational therapy assessment.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent initially placed her in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) but later removed her, approving some treatment plans.

At issue was the reasonableness and necessity of several chiropractic treatment plans, a chronic pain assessment, a functional ability evaluation, and a work site assessment.

The Tribunal found the chiropractic treatments and chronic pain assessment to be reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners and chronic pain assessor over the respondent's orthopedic IE assessor.

However, the functional ability evaluation and work site assessment were denied as the applicant failed to provide submissions or establish their goals.

Interest was awarded on the approved plans.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic services.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and she had exhausted the $3,500 funding limit.

The applicant argued her pre-existing back and shoulder conditions were exacerbated, precluding recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal found no compelling evidence that the pre-existing conditions were exacerbated by the accident or prevented recovery.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical examination report over the applicant's orthopaedic assessment, which was historically inaccurate.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury, had exhausted her MIG funding, and was not entitled to the disputed benefits or interest.

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

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied funding for a psychological assessment and physiotherapy treatment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, relying on the insurer's examination reports which outweighed the applicant's chiropractic assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for treatment plans as they fell outside the MIG, denied payment for pre-screening invoices because they were incurred prior to submission, and denied interest as no payments were overdue.