Dr. Zahavi

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding his claims of a traumatic brain injury, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, and upheld the original decision that the applicant's injuries were minor.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding his claims of a traumatic brain injury, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairment.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The Adjudicator confirmed that the original decision properly weighed the medical evidence, correctly applied the criteria for chronic pain, and appropriately assessed the applicant's psychological functionality.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming a chronic pain assessment and a chronic pain treatment program.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims.

The Tribunal found the assessment expense was incurred prior to the submission of the treatment plan, contravening section 38(2) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove she suffered from an accident-related chronic pain condition, preferring the respondent's medical evidence which showed she had reached maximum medical improvement and maintained a normal life.

Claims for a Regulation 664 award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a medical cannabis treatment plan to address chronic neck and back pain and sleep issues.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, relying on a section 44 assessment that concluded cannabis was not reasonable and necessary for chronic pain.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain specialist and cannabis clinic physician, finding that the treatment goals of reducing pain were reasonable and likely to be achieved.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the cost of the treatment plan, plus interest on the overdue amount.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for chiropractic services.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that her chronic pain condition took her outside the MIG and that the respondent had conceded the MIG limits by previously paying benefits in excess of the cap due to an administrative error.

The Tribunal found that the administrative error did not remove the applicant from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's chronic pain evidence as unpersuasive due to unexplained gaps in treatment and a lack of supporting medical documentation.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claim for benefits, and denied the request for an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied claims for a non-earner benefit and several treatment plans for medical treatment and examination expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to payment for psychological services, chronic pain assessments, aquatic therapy, and ambulance services, as these were reasonable and necessary given the applicant's pre-existing conditions and the aggravation caused by the accident.

However, the Tribunal denied the claims for chiropractic services, transportation, and orthopaedic, physiatry, and neurology assessments due to insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the subject accident, as her pre-accident activities were already significantly limited by prior accidents.