Dr. Terra Seon

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 sought removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of psychological impairment or functional limitations caused by chronic pain to warrant removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical evidence which was corroborated by the applicant's treating physician's records.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and assessments were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions (gout and a plantar spur), chronic pain syndrome, and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain syndrome and lacked a formal psychological diagnosis.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, the MIG limit was exhausted, and the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award under Regulation 664 were not payable.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries were more than minor or that a pre-existing condition prevented his maximal medical recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the claims for additional treatment plans, assessments, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents in 2017 and 2019.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her psychological impairments were caused by the accidents, attributing her symptoms to personal and financial stressors.

Claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and most medical benefits were dismissed, as the applicant had returned to work and independent medical examinations showed she did not require the claimed assistance.

The Tribunal granted one treatment plan for chiropractic services related to the 2019 accident, finding it reasonable and necessary for pain reduction.

The claim for a section 10 award was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, psychological injuries, and a pre-existing condition of pregnancy.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a diagnosis of chronic pain or a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's comprehensive psychological assessment over the applicant's provisional screening report.

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence that the applicant's pregnancy prevented maximal recovery under the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain medical benefits, asserting the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries, including partial shoulder tears, pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary up to the remaining MIG limits.

The applicant's request for an award for bad faith conduct was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a Non-Earner Benefit (NEB) and medical benefits for physical therapy and a chronic pain program.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-accident life was already significantly restricted by a pre-existing intestinal condition, and the accident did not continuously prevent him from engaging in substantially all of his pre-accident activities.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries, including mild chronic pain, were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits, and funding for medical assessments.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to ongoing IRBs, as her post-concussion syndrome and chronic pain resulted in a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal also approved a neuropsychological assessment but denied a speech language pathology assessment, noting the applicant's post-accident public speaking engagements.

Claims for attendant care benefits, a special award, and costs were dismissed.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she sustained a psychological impairment and bilateral psoas bursitis warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's psychological assessment, finding the applicant's evidence inconsistent and insufficient to establish a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also found the physical diagnoses were not accident-related.

The application was dismissed as the MIG limits were exhausted.

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

The respondent insurer paid benefits up to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied further claims.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing her pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological issues warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor, soft tissue injuries and that her pain and psychological complaints were merely clinically associated sequelae.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding the applicant was not entitled to benefits beyond the MIG limit.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and terminated income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological injury (anxiety) as a result of the accident, removing him from the MIG.

However, the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment within 104 weeks, or a complete inability to engage in any employment thereafter.

The claim for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for various treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 coverage limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, specifically neck and back strains, and that her ongoing pain was attributable to pre-existing degenerative disc disease and osteoarthritis rather than the accident.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment, preferring the insurer's expert evidence.

As the applicant did not meet the criteria for a pre-existing condition exception, she remained subject to the MIG limit, and her claims for further benefits, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal relied on insurer's examination reports and the applicant's own self-reporting to medical practitioners, which contradicted her claims of disability and indicated she had returned to a substantially normal, active life.

The claim for physiotherapy was also dismissed as the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to support it, and the insurer's medical examination concluded she had reached maximum medical recovery.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed, and the insurer's request for costs was denied.

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

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she sustained psychological impairments that removed her from the MIG.

The adjudicator preferred the insurer's psychological assessment, which included validity testing indicating symptom magnification, over the applicant's psychological evidence.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for additional medical benefits, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits, including an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB), medical benefits, and the cost of examinations.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove he was employed at the time of the accident and failed to attend required insurer examinations.

However, the arbitrator found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts over the insurer's experts.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was not malingering and that the proposed medical treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a Special Award was dismissed as the applicant and his counsel contributed to the delays.