Jessica Green

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and denied her claims for non-earner and medical benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator failed to consider whether the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator reviewed the treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and various assessments.

Applying the criteria for reasonable and necessary treatment, the adjudicator found that the applicant had sufficient functional abilities and that further assessments would be duplicative.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found their injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied medical benefits.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator made an error of fact, as the respondent had already removed the applicant from the MIG prior to the hearing.

The Vice-Chair agreed that the adjudicator made a factual error by deciding an issue that was no longer in dispute, which resulted in the treatment plans not being adjudicated.

The request for reconsideration was granted, and the matter was remitted to the original adjudicator to issue a new decision solely on the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment plans based on the existing evidence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim for non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator breached procedural fairness, misinterpreted section 36 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule regarding the insurer's notice of denial, and erred in applying the test for non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness, the insurer had provided the required notice, and the adjudicator made no significant legal error in concluding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant sought medical benefits for psychological and chiropractic services following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting that many of the applicant's complaints stemmed from previous and subsequent accidents.

The applicant also failed to comply with production orders, prejudicing the respondent.

The claims were dismissed, and no costs were awarded as the applicant's conduct did not meet the high threshold for a costs award.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he was still able to engage in substantially all of his pre-accident activities, albeit with some pain and restrictions.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to admit a late-filed medical report.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for arbitration regarding accident benefits.

The applicant's legal representatives brought a motion to withdraw due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, as they had been unable to reach the applicant for several months.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The arbitrator granted the motion to withdraw, dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's failure to participate and prove his claims, and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $1,000.