Dr. T. Seon

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing he should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain, noting a lack of specialist referrals, imaging, or functional impairment.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of a psychological condition caused by the accident, relying on s. 44 assessments that concluded the applicant did not meet DSM criteria for any psychological diagnosis.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, he remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, rendering the disputed treatment plans moot.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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 chronic pain, pre-existing conditions including gout and hypertension, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to establish that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments.

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

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

The insurer initially denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

After the applicant was removed from the MIG following an insurer examination, the Tribunal assessed the disputed treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the psychological assessment, psychological services, and two medical services plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on evidence of chronic pain and adjustment disorder.

However, the Tribunal denied a transportation expense claim because the applicant failed to prove the distance exceeded 50 kilometres, and denied a chiropractic services plan because the applicant failed to submit a signed OCF-18.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments.

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

The respondent determined the applicant sustained a minor injury, subjecting her to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit, and denied her claims for non-earner benefits and certain treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft-tissue injuries and that her pre-existing chronic pain and psychological issues were not materially exacerbated by the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which incorporated a review of pre-accident medical records, over the applicant's experts who relied solely on self-reporting.

The application was dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG or that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer terminated the IRB and denied further treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a server, noting she had returned to work and lacked corroborating medical evidence.

The Tribunal also held the applicant did not establish non-minor injuries such as chronic pain or a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, finding the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and did not cause sufficient functional impairment to justify removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's experts failed to account for subsequent motor vehicle accidents and relied heavily on self-reporting without objective testing.

As the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, and physiatry assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered soft tissue injuries and did not establish that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain with functional impairment, or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, noting she returned to work post-accident and was terminated for performance issues.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant had no functional impairments preventing her from working.

The claims for IRBs, treatment plans, and assessments were dismissed.