Gabrielle Nigro

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and a non-earner benefit.

The applicant argued that her pre-existing chronic pain, anxiety, and depression, as well as post-accident chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded maximal recovery within the MIG, and failed to prove she suffered from accident-related chronic pain.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as her post-accident functional limitations were consistent with her pre-accident medical history.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to chiropractic treatment plans and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving chronic pain with functional impairment, noting a lack of medical evidence and infrequent visits to her primary care physician.

Relying in part on an insurer's examination which found full range of motion, the adjudicator held the applicant to the MIG.

Consequently, the claims for chiropractic services and interest were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of ongoing psychological or physical impairments to warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological treatment were denied, along with claims for interest and a section 10 award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for massage therapy, assistive devices (specifically personal protective equipment), an attendant care assessment, and a psychological assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the expenses were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal held that personal protective equipment is an administrative cost not payable under the Schedule.

The claims for attendant care and psychological assessments were dismissed due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence and reliance on flawed or outdated reports.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, with no interest or award granted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he remained within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and was not entitled to disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in applying s. 18(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and in assessing his claim of chronic pain.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate an error of law or fact.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the weighing of medical evidence, which is not a valid ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide expert medical evidence or documentation to establish that his injuries were non-minor or psychological in nature.

A sleep study indicated normal sleep, and there were no referrals to specialists.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, subject to the MIG limits, and dismissed the application.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing physical and psychological impairments, accident-related psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

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

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered from accident-related psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, interest, or an award.

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

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

The applicant argued that chronic pain and psychological injuries removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of functionally disabling chronic pain or a psychological impairment, noting the lack of corroborating medical records.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits were exhausted, the application for disputed benefits and interest was dismissed.