Jodie A. Therrien

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

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

The applicant argued the respondent's denial notices were statutorily deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the denial notices were valid and the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent insurer.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispute the denial of several treatment plans for physiotherapy and assessments, arguing the denial letters were non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the respondent's denial letters were compliant with the Schedule, as they clearly identified the treatment plans, stated what would not be paid for, and provided the medical reason that the injuries fell within the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, as the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition or psychological impairment warranting removal.

A treatment plan for physical therapy was denied because the MIG limit was exhausted.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a $2,200 psychological assessment once incurred, finding the respondent's denial was defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule because it relied on an unrelated, previously settled claim, thereby triggering the 'shall pay' provision.

Claims for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 were dismissed as the respondent's error was not highhanded or unreasonable.

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 chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition warranting removal.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters were compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, as the applicant failed to comply with s. 33 requests for information.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The adjudicator found that the medical evidence, including hospital records and an insurer's examination, demonstrated only uncomplicated soft-tissue injuries.

As the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, he was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans exceeding the $3,500 limit.