Dr. J. Gordon

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 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first extended the two-year limitation period under section 7 of the LAT Act, allowing the application to proceed.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the Applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment under criterion (f) for mental and behavioural impairments, concluding his limitations were primarily physical due to a herniated disc rather than psychological.

However, the Tribunal found the disputed physiotherapy, chiropractic, and psychological treatment plans to be reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also excluded late-filed evidence from the Applicant and rebuttal reports obtained without notice by the Respondent.

The Applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments and a section 10 award of $1,077.43 for the Respondent's unreasonable delay in adjusting the 2017 plans.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various medical benefits including chiropractic treatment, occupational therapy, assistive devices, and medicinal cannabis.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's ongoing issues were related to pre-existing degenerative disc disease rather than the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove her degenerative lumbar issues were caused or exacerbated by the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, concluding the proposed treatments and devices were not reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

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

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

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

The adjudicator found that the medical evidence, including hospital records and an insurer's examination, demonstrated only uncomplicated soft-tissue injuries.

As the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, he was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans exceeding the $3,500 limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the physiotherapy treatment plans on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery, and disputed the hourly rate claimed for psychological services rendered by a social worker.

The adjudicator found that the applicant had recovered from uncomplicated soft-tissue injuries and had no residual impairments, making further physiotherapy not reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator also held that the social worker was not entitled to the enhanced hourly rate reserved for psychologists under the Professional Services Guideline.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed as no benefits were unreasonably withheld or overdue.