Dr. Rick Lindal

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to prove a psychological impairment or chronic pain condition that would warrant treatment outside the MIG limits.

The application for disputed treatment plans and assessments was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment, specifically driving anxiety and nightmares, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved a psychological assessment and partially approved a physiotherapy treatment plan for a TENS unit and heating pad, but denied facility-based treatment.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's initial denial notice non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, but held that s. 38(11) only required payment for items incurred during the non-compliance period.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, bursitis, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting his pain was improving, his bursitis was captured within the MIG definition, and his psychological symptoms did not constitute an impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG, and sought non-earner benefits (NEB) and funding for treatment plans.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical records reporting psychological concerns.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she had successfully continued her education and secured employment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG.

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits, including psychological, chiropractic, yoga, massage, chronic pain, nutritional, and in-vehicle assessments, following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum therapeutic benefit for her minor soft tissue injuries and did not suffer from functional impairments or chronic pain requiring further assessments.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for non-earner benefits, various physiotherapy treatment plans, and assessments for psychology and chronic pain.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, noting the lack of clinical records and the failure of his assessors to address the respondent's medical reports.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, applying the Heath test and finding the applicant had resumed substantially all of his pre-accident activities, including completing his education.

All disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological assessment report unreliable as its authorship was unclear and its severe findings were uncorroborated by contemporaneous medical records.

The Tribunal also noted insufficient evidence of chronic pain impacting function.

Concluding the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, the Tribunal denied the disputed psychological assessment as not reasonable and necessary, and found no interest payable.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits, medical benefits for physiotherapy, and the cost of examinations for mental health and chronic pain assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's expert reports due to their reliance on self-reporting without a Somali interpreter and failure to include signed expert duty acknowledgments.

The respondent's section 44 assessments, which utilized an interpreter and found symptom magnification and minor injuries, were preferred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries should be excluded from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing neck issues or depression prevented him from reaching maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which was supported by the family doctor's records showing the applicant was weaning off psychiatric medication.

The Tribunal also found insufficient objective medical evidence to support a diagnosis of chronic pain.

As the injuries fell within the MIG and the funding limits were exhausted, the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, housekeeping, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's chronic pain and psychological impairments were not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator applied the material contribution test and found the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing conditions, causing permanent impairment to her right shoulder and psychological disorders.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits, certain medical and assessment costs, and interest, but her claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed due to insufficient credible evidence.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits from his insurer.

The insurer terminated income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits, arguing the applicant was no longer disabled and had not sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant's physical injuries were largely resolved or pre-existing, the accident triggered a mental disorder (Adjustment Disorder/Major Depressive Disorder) that caused a marked impairment in the sphere of adaptation.

Consequently, the applicant was deemed catastrophically impaired.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay ongoing income replacement benefits, finding the applicant met both the eligibility and disability tests.

The arbitrator also awarded ongoing housekeeping benefits at $90 per week and specific attendant care benefits, but dismissed the claims for assessment costs and a special award.