Dr. Mrahar

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 chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not support chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant remains in the MIG, and therefore dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans and interest.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans and an income replacement benefit, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for psychological services, a psychological assessment, physiotherapy, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, claims for chiropractic services and an income replacement benefit were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the approved benefits but declined to order a special award, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his psychological injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator reviewed competing psychological assessments.

The applicant's expert diagnosed an adjustment disorder, while the respondent's expert found no significant symptomology and suspected malingering.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's expert evidence, noting it aligned with the applicant's own reports to other assessors that he was not experiencing emotional difficulties.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to prove a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) on the basis of psychological impairment or chronic pain, preferring the respondent's psychological evidence.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) for a closed period, preferring the evidence of the applicant's chiropractor and clinical records over the respondent's physiatrist.

The claims for disputed treatment plans were dismissed as the MIG limits were exhausted, and the claim for a special award was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient, preferring the respondent's psychological assessments which found only subclinical symptoms.

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

The application was dismissed, with the applicant remaining subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to physiotherapy and psychological treatment plans outside the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment caused by the accident, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, relying on section 44 assessments that found no physical or psychological impairments preventing him from working.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, as there was insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain with functional impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans, which proposed treatment outside the MIG, were denied, along with claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant was a passenger in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting inconsistencies between her self-reported psychological symptoms and her family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant could still engage in most of her pre-accident activities of daily living, albeit at a slower pace.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans and a non-earner benefit, arguing the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment that would remove her from the MIG, preferring the respondent's expert evidence due to the applicant's inconsistent self-reports.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

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

The respondent determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied further treatment plans and income replacement benefits (IRB) after the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain or psychological injuries caused by the accident that would remove him from the MIG, noting he withheld information about a subsequent shooting incident from his assessors.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain assessment and a chronic pain program following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing a lack of medical evidence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as she did not provide post-accident clinical notes and records from her treating physicians.

The expert reports relied upon by the applicant were based solely on self-reporting and pre-accident records.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $400 per week following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological and physical impairments prevented him from performing his essential tasks as an AutoCAD technician.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant returned to work immediately, was terminated for being a poor fit, and lacked objective medical evidence of disability.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous, objective medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment tasks during the disputed period.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution.

The Tribunal found that while the initial physical injuries were predominantly minor, the applicant subsequently developed chronic pain with accompanying psychological impairment, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded that the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services were reasonable and necessary, and ordered the respondent to pay the benefits with interest.

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

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

The Tribunal found that while the physical injuries were predominantly minor, the applicant demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that she sustained psychological impairments removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered payment for the psychological assessment and treatment plans, along with interest, but denied the chiropractic treatment plan as not reasonable and necessary.