Mr. Robert Campos

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, chiropractic treatment plans, and a psychological assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits based on section 44 insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical evidence showed she could perform personal care, grocery shop, and swim.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for medical benefits, preferring the respondent's expert evidence that the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to engage in her pre-accident activities of daily living.

The Tribunal also denied the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and social work services, relying on the clinical notes of the applicant's family doctor and the respondent's section 44 insurer examinations, which indicated the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services, assistive devices, a chronic pain assessment, and a neurological assessment following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits and requested the exclusion of late-filed medical records, which the Tribunal allowed into evidence as the delay was minimal and non-prejudicial.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the objective medical evidence from the respondent's multiple insurer's examinations, which consistently found normal ranges of motion and no objective signs of accident-related impairments warranting the disputed treatments.