Ms. Gronkowska

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairment and approved treatment plans.

The respondent argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by ignoring evidence and misapplying case law.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness or errors of law or fact, noting that the respondent was improperly attempting to re-litigate the case and re-weigh the evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, claiming catastrophic impairment due to physical and psychological injuries from a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove causation on a "but for" basis, noting that his psychological impairments were primarily caused by significant non-accident life stressors, including financial ruin and family breakdown.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 (Whole Person Impairment) or Criterion 8 (Mental and Behavioural Disorders).

Consequently, the claims for a neuro-psychological examination, attendant care benefits, and housekeeping and home maintenance benefits were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The adjudicator found that the applicant should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment, supported by expert evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.

The adjudicator approved the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, and a psychological assessment as reasonable and necessary.

The claim for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's reliance on its assessors was not unreasonable.

Interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied non-earner benefits, found the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, and denied disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made errors of law and fact in weighing medical evidence and sought to introduce new medical evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact, as disagreement with the weighing of evidence does not constitute an error.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the new evidence could have been obtained prior to the hearing and would not have likely affected the outcome.