Jeff Perrier

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and a non-earner benefit.

The applicant argued that her pre-existing chronic pain, anxiety, and depression, as well as post-accident chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded maximal recovery within the MIG, and failed to prove she suffered from accident-related chronic pain.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as her post-accident functional limitations were consistent with her pre-accident medical history.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including treatment plans for chiropractic, occupational therapy, dietician, dental, and physiotherapy services, as well as an in-home functional assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous and corroborating medical evidence.

The claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, an award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to produce ordered medical and employment records without explanation.

Relying on the respondent's medical assessments, the adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he remained independent with self-care, household tasks, and his studies.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied as no benefits were owed.

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

The respondent insurer denied four treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered minor soft tissue injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's section 44 medical assessments, which found the applicant had returned to work and normal activities, and noted a lack of corroborating clinical records for the applicant's self-reported symptoms.

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

The applicant was injured as a pedestrian in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The adjudicator held a written hearing to determine entitlement to attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and psychological services.

The adjudicator denied the claim for attendant care benefits, finding that the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred under s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule, as there was no evidence of economic loss by the family member providing care.

The adjudicator partially allowed the claims for physiotherapy, finding that provider travel time was reasonable and necessary given the applicant's mobility limitations, but denied funding for planning services and mileage.

The claims for occupational therapy and psychological services were dismissed for lack of evidence demonstrating reasonableness and necessity.