3 total
Application for psychological benefits denied due to symptom magnification and failed validity testing.
The applicant sought entitlement to two treatment plans for psychological services, an award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident involving her father.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.
The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found the applicant failed validity testing and exhibited symptom magnification, over the applicant's outdated progress reports that lacked objective testing data.
As no benefits were payable, the claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.
Reconsideration request dismissed; adjudicator made no errors in assessing MIG limits and IRB entitlement.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he remained within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and was not entitled to an income replacement benefit (IRB) or other disputed benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in assessing the medical evidence, including requiring contemporaneous records for psychological impairments, and misapplied the test for IRB entitlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the adjudicator properly weighed the evidence, including the reliability of the psychological assessment, and correctly focused the IRB analysis on the essential tasks of the applicant's pre-accident employment.
No errors of law or fact were established under Rule 18.2(b).
Application for unapproved balance of psychological assessment dismissed due to lack of fee breakdown.
The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.
The respondent approved a portion of a psychological assessment plan but denied the remaining balance of $803.12.
The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispute the denial.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the unapproved balance was reasonable and necessary, as the assessment plan lacked a breakdown of the methodologies, time required, and hourly rates.
The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 assessment, which concluded that the approved amount was reasonable based on the Professional Services Guideline.
The application was dismissed.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.