Dr. Mile Stefanac

The applicant sought medical benefits for a chronic pain assessment and treatment program following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of chronic pain inconsistent and insufficient to meet the AMA Guides criteria, concluding his injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $7,036.98 in income replacement benefits, finding he willfully misrepresented his receipt of employment insurance and disability benefits.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans for chiropractic services and a TMJ assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden to be removed from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the $804.00 treatment plan for chiropractic services because its denial notice failed to provide sufficient medical reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The claim for the TMJ assessment was dismissed as the denial notice for that plan was compliant.

Claims for an award under Regulation 664 were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological impairments, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's medical assessment, which was corroborated by the applicant's family physician's records, over the applicant's chiropractor's recommendations.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued that her physical injuries, pre-existing alopecia, psychological impairments, and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were uncomplicated soft-tissue injuries.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting that the applicant's psychological and chronic pain diagnoses were not supported by her family physician's clinical notes and records, and that her experts failed to review fulsome medical documentation.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were found not payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant sought funding for a chronic pain assessment, a psychological assessment, and physical therapy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition or functional limitations that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's medical examination and the applicant's clinical records, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that her pre-existing degenerative changes precluded maximal recovery under the MIG.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, finding no accident-related psychological impairment, and rejected the applicant's claim of chronic pain due to a lack of objective medical evidence and functional impairment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were denied.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his physical injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's partial supraspinatus tear and C6 radiculopathy met the definition of minor injuries.

Applying the four-part test for chronic pain, the adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate severe and constant pain or functional impairment sufficient to remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's psychological assessment finding no psychological injury.

As the injuries fell within the MIG and the respondent provided valid denials for the disputed treatment plans, the application was dismissed, and no interest or awards were granted.