Peter Li Preti

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for a multi-disciplinary chronic pain program and psychological services following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to comply with a production order for clinical notes and records.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying instead on the respondent's insurer examinations which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and did not suffer from a psychological impairment.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's examiners, noting that the applicant's experts failed to explain how her pain improved over time and then worsened years later, and that her psychological assessment was conducted by a panel lacking a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist.

As the applicant had exhausted her $3,500 MIG limit, her claims for further medical benefits, an award, and interest were dismissed.