Dr. Michael Martin

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various treatment plans and assessments outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and did not result in functional impairment consistent with chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no evidence of psychological impairment, over the applicant's assessment.

Consequently, the applicant was not removed from the MIG, and the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to two treatment plans for chiropractic services, as the medical evidence supported her ongoing symptoms from an ankle fracture, and the insurer's expert reports were given little weight.

The Tribunal also approved the unapproved balance of two psychological treatment plans, preferring the treating psychologist's recommendation for 1.5-hour sessions over the insurer's expert's 1.0-hour recommendation.

However, the Tribunal denied a third psychological treatment plan because the applicant failed to attend a scheduled insurer's examination, barring her claim under s. 55(1)(2) of the Schedule.

Claims for travel expenses and an occupational therapy assessment were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, finding the insurer's reliance on its expert reports was not unreasonable.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to paresthesia, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The adjudicator found insufficient medical evidence linking the paresthesia or imaging results to the accident.

Furthermore, the adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment, noting inconsistencies between the applicant's self-reporting to different medical practitioners.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

The applicant sought payment for four treatment plans for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that while the accident caused the applicant's injuries and ongoing pain, the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

Medical evidence indicated that the applicant had achieved his goals of increased range of motion and strength, and that previous chiropractic treatments provided only temporary relief.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and seeking income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

At the hearing, the self-represented applicant failed to produce any medical records or expert evidence to support his claims.

The respondent relied on orthopaedic and psychological assessments concluding the applicant's injuries were minor and he was able to work.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof for removal from the MIG, entitlement to IRBs, or the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment plans.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's post-hearing request for an adjournment, noting the matter had been delayed multiple times and a "do-over" was not a valid ground.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove that his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the adjudicator preferred the respondent's psychological assessments, which included validity testing, over the applicant's evidence, concluding that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would remove him from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's right wrist impairment pre-dated the accident and was not caused by it.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's claims for a knee brace, chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his sedentary pre-accident employment as a debt collector.

The claim for attendant care benefits was also dismissed as the expenses were not incurred and the applicant was found to be independent with personal care tasks.