Dr. Stephen Brown

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome, which removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed physiotherapy treatment plans and the chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, along with interest on the overdue payments.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), her psychological impairments (Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder) took her outside the MIG.

However, the claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove the expenses were 'incurred' under section 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The evidence regarding care provided by family members was vague, lacked corroboration, and failed to establish economic loss or that the care was provided in the course of ordinary employment.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, medical benefits for transportation, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed that chronic pain completely prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

The respondent relied on surveillance evidence showing the applicant working as a pizza delivery driver and engaging in strenuous physical activity, as well as medical assessments indicating normal objective findings.

The Tribunal found the applicant's subjective reports of pain lacked credibility and were contradicted by the surveillance and objective medical evidence.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.