Dr. Julie Gosselin

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unpersuasive, noting a lack of corroboration in clinical records and preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which found no substantive psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, dismissing the claims for psychological treatment, assessment, and interest.

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

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to an accident-related psychological injury.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG, placing little weight on her psychological reports due to lack of objective testing and inconsistencies.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she was barred from claiming a non-earner benefit (NEB) for failing to attend scheduled insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding with the NEB claim due to her unexcused failure to attend the examinations, though she was awarded one day of NEBs because the respondent's denial notice was one day late.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant failed to prove her physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG, as her psychological complaints were primarily related to life stressors rather than the accident.

Consequently, the claims for disputed treatment plans were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, a concussion, and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reporting and the applicant's expert assessments inconsistent with the clinical notes of treating practitioners and the respondent's assessments.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct was not frivolous or vexatious.

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

The respondent denied various chiropractic and psychological treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a pre-existing condition, a psychological impairment, or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological and physical assessments, noting a lack of psychological symptoms in the treating practitioners' records and no evidence of functional impairment.

The application for the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological and chronic pain evidence was outweighed by the respondent's expert assessments and the lack of contemporaneous complaints in the family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's impairments were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were denied.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence, including an OCF-3 from a physiotherapist and a psychological assessment by a social worker, lacked weight due to scope of practice issues and inconsistencies with contemporaneous medical records.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain under the AMA Guides.

Consequently, the applicant remained within the MIG, and the claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest were dismissed.