The applicant sought non-earner benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was barred from claiming non-earner benefits because she failed to submit a completed disability certificate supporting her claim, as required by s. 36(2) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting that her pre-accident medical records contradicted her testimony regarding her pre-accident activity levels.

The claim for a psychological pre-screening assessment was also dismissed as not reasonable and necessary, and no award or costs were granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied medical benefits for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and a pre-existing back condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish chronic pain or psychological impairments that would remove her from the MIG, noting that a chiropractor cannot diagnose such conditions and the psychological expert's conclusions contradicted his own testing.

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence that a pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans and assessment were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was a pedestrian struck by a vehicle and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer limited the applicant's medical and rehabilitation benefits to the $3,500 cap under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that chronic pain and psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment, preferring the objective findings of the insurer's examination assessors over the subjective reports of the applicant's experts.

As the injuries fell within the MIG and the maximum benefits had already been approved, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The claims for an award and costs were also dismissed, as the insurer did not act unreasonably.