Mr. Stewart Tsuji

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and funding for two chiropractic treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the test for non-earner benefits, as medical assessments demonstrated her daily routine remained largely unchanged and her impairments were largely attributable to pre-existing musculoskeletal conditions.

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the first treatment plan because it was not properly submitted or denied.

The second treatment plan was denied because the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence that the treatment was reasonable and necessary for accident-related injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy and a claim for income replacement benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the insurer's expert reports over the applicant's treating physicians due to gaps in treatment and lack of causal connection.

The adjudicator also concluded that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a restaurant manager.

The application was dismissed.