Dr. R.A. Williams

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $85,181.38 in income replacement benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer alleged the respondent engaged in willful misrepresentation by working post-accident while denying employment to assessors.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute and concluded the respondent willfully misrepresented his employment status.

As the respondent failed to provide evidence to calculate the exact quantum of repayment, the Tribunal ordered the full amount of $85,181.38 to be repaid, plus interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain treatment plans and assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's credibility was undermined by his failure to report a subsequent 2016 accident and pre-existing pain to his expert assessors.

Preferring the respondent's physiatry and psychology experts over the applicant's, the Tribunal concluded the physical injuries were soft tissue strains and there was no diagnosable psychological impairment.

The Tribunal held the injuries were predominantly minor and the disputed treatment plans and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and approval of various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, relying on insurer examinations and surveillance evidence that contradicted her testimony.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans and claims for an award and interest were also denied.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits, including prescription medications, medical and rehabilitation treatment plans, and a worksite assessment, following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, finding that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving the expenses were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal accepted the insurer's uncontested medical evidence that the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery and that the ongoing pain was largely related to a pre-accident condition.