Robert Bullard

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained an accident-related psychological impairment, removing her from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal awarded two psychological treatment plans and an income replacement benefit, finding that the exacerbation of her pre-accident sleep issues caused a substantial and complete inability to perform her pre-accident employment as a postal clerk.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed, but interest on overdue payments was granted.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and approval for various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment or a complete inability to engage in any employment.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's expert reports and relying on the applicant's successful completion of a three-month accounting work placement.

The claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and an income replacement benefit on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and captured by the MIG.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims of psychological impairment and chronic pain, noting inconsistent self-reporting and placing little weight on a chronic pain assessment conducted via videoconference without objective documentation.

As the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The claim for an income replacement benefit was also dismissed as the applicant provided no submissions on the issue.

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

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

The applicant argued her injuries warranted treatment beyond the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly soft tissue in nature and fell squarely within the definition of minor injuries.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of chronic pain syndrome or psychological impairment.

The application for medical benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) for both the pre-104 week and post-104 week periods.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits based on multidisciplinary assessments concluding the applicant suffered minor injuries and could return to work.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to IRBs for a limited period from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017, as her injuries temporarily prevented her from working.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for ongoing IRBs, noting that the applicant had retrained as a personal support worker, completed practicums, and travelled internationally, demonstrating she no longer suffered a substantial or complete inability to work.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue benefits for the limited period.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a waitress and usher.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including reports from an orthopaedic surgeon and a chiropractor, persuasive in establishing her functional limitations due to a fractured wrist, shoulder strain, and back pain.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the insurer's assessments, noting they were incomplete and failed to account for pain during testing.

The applicant was awarded IRBs of $315.27 per week for the disputed period, plus interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer terminated the IRB and denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant no longer suffered a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident job tasks and that the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his employment tasks during the disputed period, relying on the insurer's expert assessments.

The Tribunal approved one chiropractic treatment plan as reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's ongoing pain and the insurer's failure to conduct a timely examination, but denied the remaining plans for chiropractic, psychological, and occupational therapy services due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her physical and psychological impairments removed her from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitled her to an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or severe psychological impairment that would take her injuries outside the MIG.

Furthermore, relying on the respondent's medical assessments, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The application for medical benefits beyond the MIG cap and for an IRB was dismissed.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an automobile garage owner.

The respondent insurer terminated the benefit and relied on surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's self-reported limitations.

The adjudicator found the applicant's medical evidence relied heavily on his self-reports, which were undermined by surveillance showing him walking without a cane, driving, and bending without visible difficulty.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks.