Sean Shahrokhnia

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).

As a preliminary issue, the respondent argued the application was barred by res judicata because a previous Tribunal decision had already determined the applicant was subject to the MIG.

The adjudicator found res judicata did not apply because the previous decision addressed whether the applicant had a pre-existing condition, whereas the current application argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment.

On the substantive issues, the adjudicator found the applicant's chronic neck pain and headaches pre-dated the accident and her psychological complaints were related to this pre-existing pain.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and she was not entitled to the disputed treatment plan or an award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for massage therapy and chiropractic services, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's occupational therapist who conducted a comprehensive in-home assessment over the insurer's independent medical examination.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's preliminary motion to strike the respondent's late-filed written submissions, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant was awarded the disputed treatment plans and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for physiotherapy and psychological treatment following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had significant pre-existing physical and psychological conditions, and the medical evidence did not establish that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for an award under Regulation 664, finding no evidence that the respondent's conduct was excessive or imprudent.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.