Dr. J. Brunshaw

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

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

The applicant sought removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, pre-existing conditions including gout and hypertension, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to establish that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied funding for several treatment and assessment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a fractured tooth, which is not a minor injury, and therefore he was not subject to the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment plans because they were submitted as standard plans rather than MIG treatment confirmation forms before evidence of the non-minor injury was provided.

The claims for psychological and occupational therapy assessments were also dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were denied.

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment plans for chiropractic, shockwave therapy, massage, acupuncture, and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant exceeded the ordered page limit for written submissions and excluded the excess pages.

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

The respondent insurer denied various treatment plans and income replacement benefits (IRBs), arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were minor, rejecting reports of psychological impairment and chronic pain due to inconsistencies and suspected malingering.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical examinations, concluding the applicant was subject to the $3,500 MIG limit and not entitled to the disputed medical benefits.

The claim for IRBs was also dismissed as the applicant failed to prove an inability to perform essential tasks and did not disclose post-accident income.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were minor and unrelated to the accident, preferring the respondent's medical evidence.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's psychological claims, noting inconsistencies, lack of a translator during assessment, and absence of psychological issues in clinical notes.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed minor and the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, all disputed treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for psychological and neurological assessments.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a concussion, psychological injury, or chronic pain as a result of the subject accident, noting that any ongoing symptoms were likely attributable to a subsequent accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury subject to the MIG, dismissed the claims for the disputed assessment plans, and denied claims for an award and interest.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood as a result of the accident, removing her from the MIG.

Consequently, the 2020 psychological assessment and treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary.

However, the tribunal denied the physical and chronic pain treatment plans, finding that the applicant's ongoing physical complaints were related to pre-existing degenerative issues rather than the accident.

The tribunal also awarded the applicant $1,612.79 under section 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer unreasonably delayed payment by refusing to accept the uncontested psychological assessment report.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical treatment plans.

The insurer initially placed the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied several treatment plans, later removing her from the MIG for psychological impairments but terminating IRBs based on insurer examinations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to further IRBs, as she did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her essential tasks as an Uber driver, noting she was enrolled in a full-time massage therapy program.

The Tribunal upheld the insurer's denial of most treatment plans under s. 38(5) of the Schedule, but approved one physiotherapy plan and the balance of a psychological assessment.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits from her insurer.

The insurer initially classified her injuries under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied several treatment plans, later removing her from the MIG for psychological impairments but terminating IRBs based on insurer examinations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to further IRBs, as she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform her essential tasks as an Uber driver, noting she was enrolled in a full-time massage therapy program.

The Tribunal upheld the insurer's denial of early treatment plans under section 38(5) of the Schedule but approved one physiotherapy plan and the balance of a psychological assessment, along with applicable interest.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer initially paid the benefit but terminated it following insurance examinations.

The applicant argued the termination notice was deficient under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the notice lacked medical reasons, this did not automatically entitle the applicant to ongoing benefits.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in his self-reporting, pre-existing conditions from a prior workplace accident, and evidence that he had returned to work.

The application was dismissed.