Michael Drinkwater

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she did not meet the test for income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a concussion or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plan for physiotherapy was denied.

The Tribunal also found insufficient medical evidence to establish that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, dismissing her claim for IRBs and interest.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant claimed she suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, post-concussion syndrome, and chronic pain, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including a neurologist's report, unconvincing and unsupported by objective testing.

Preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The applicant was awarded the remaining $1,278.19 of her MIG limit towards one treatment plan, but the remaining claims and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries warranted treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological issues, and exacerbation of a pre-existing condition.

The insurer denied the disputed treatment plans, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG, preferring the insurer's medical examination reports over the applicant's unsupported treatment plans.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and funding for various medical assessments and treatments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to pre-104 or post-104 week IRBs, as she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment tasks or a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment, largely due to credibility issues and lack of effort during assessments.

The Tribunal also denied funding for chiropractic services and a functional abilities assessment.

However, the Tribunal granted funding for a physiatry assessment and a psychological examination to further explore the applicant's chronic pain and psychological symptoms, along with interest on these overdue amounts.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment and medical benefits for psychological and physiotherapy treatment, following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's psychological issues were pre-existing and unrelated to the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, as he presented no medical evidence to support his claims, while the respondent's expert evidence established that his psychiatric condition predated the accident.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the insured person medical benefits and the cost of assessments and reports, arguing the arbitrator erred in law by relying on the evidence of a clinic director with a financial interest in the outcome and poor record-keeping practices.

The insured person cross-appealed the dismissal of claims for translation services and the offsetting of a misdirected payment.

The Director's Delegate found that the arbitrator's findings of fact regarding the medical benefits were supported by the evidence and did not constitute an error of law.

However, the Director's Delegate allowed the appeal in part, finding the arbitrator erred in awarding section 24 expenses for certain reports that served only as advocacy or were prepared after the treatment cut-off date.

The cross-appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement and housekeeping benefits from his insurer.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant failed to attend an insurer's examination and was no longer disabled.

The arbitrator found the applicant had a reasonable excuse for missing the examination due to confusing correspondence and language barriers.

The arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits for the initial period and up to February 17, 2004, finding insufficient evidence of disability beyond that date, as the applicant's leg numbness was likely a benign condition.

Housekeeping benefits were awarded at a reduced rate of $20 per week based on an in-home assessment, as the applicant's evidence regarding his pre-accident housekeeping was vague and unsupported.

The applicant claimed she was injured in a minor motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits and housekeeping expenses from her insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the collision was too minor to cause the alleged injuries and questioning the applicant's credibility.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence unreliable, noting numerous inconsistencies and implausible explanations regarding the accident and her injuries.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her employment tasks or housekeeping duties as a result of the accident.

All claims for benefits and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was entitled to income replacement benefits for a limited period from July 22, 2000, to October 4, 2000, based on his family doctor's evidence of ongoing improvement.

However, relying on surveillance evidence and a Med Rehab DAC assessment, the arbitrator concluded the applicant was substantially able to perform his pre-accident employment as a welder after October 4, 2000.

The arbitrator also awarded $1,522 for chiropractic treatments but denied the claim for physiotherapy and massage treatments, finding them not reasonable and necessary.