Julianne Brimfield

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 physical pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence, such as clinical notes or objective medical examinations, to support removal from the MIG.

The disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, as she failed to provide sufficient evidence for removal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for income replacement benefits and various treatment plans, finding that the respondent's denial notices complied with the requirements of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued that a pre-existing back condition warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that while there was evidence of pre-existing back pain and degenerative disc disease, the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that this condition would prevent maximal medical recovery within the MIG limits.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain syndrome or psychological impairment, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor.

The application for a chiropractic treatment plan and interest was dismissed.

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 claimed a pre-existing left knee condition warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a documented pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of her daughter.

The applicant applied as a dependent under her parents' policy, as she did not own a vehicle.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not an 'insured person' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was employed, earning sufficient income to meet most of her financial needs, and was not principally dependent on her parents for financial support at the time of the accident.

The application was dismissed.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, as there was insufficient medical evidence of chronic pain, psychological impairment, or a pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the claims for medical assessments, physiotherapy, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant sought removal from the MIG due to physical and psychological impairments, as well as entitlement to non-earner benefits (NEBs) and specific treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were minor and did not warrant removal from the MIG.

Relying on medical assessments and surveillance evidence showing the applicant working and driving, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application for NEBs, treatment plans, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was not entitled to the unpaid balances of two partially approved treatment plans because the services were provided by a psychotherapist rather than a psychologist, and the insurer's approved hourly rate of $91.43 was reasonable.

The Tribunal also denied a third treatment plan for psychological services, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessment which concluded no further counselling was recommended, supported by the applicant's admission that therapy provided no benefit.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, and the applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal 59 days after the two-year limitation period expired.

The applicant requested an extension of time under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the delay and declined to extend the limitation period.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

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

The respondent denied various 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 impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling objective medical evidence to substantiate his claims, noting inconsistencies between the expert reports and the applicant's daily activities, including his return to full-time work.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, and because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans, award, and interest were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, claiming he suffered severe psychological injuries following the death of his mother in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant was not an 'insured person' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule because his psychological issues were pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had significant pre-existing psychological impairments, including major depression, and failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that these conditions were caused or aggravated by his mother's death.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's s. 25 psychological assessment because it relied on inaccurate self-reporting and the assessors did not review pre-accident records.

The application was dismissed, along with claims for interest, a special award, and costs.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the funding limits had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that pre-existing psychological and physical conditions, as well as chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the pre-existing conditions prevented maximal medical recovery within the MIG limits, noting the applicant's functionality improved post-accident and diagnostic tests showed no significant injuries.

The application was dismissed, and claims for treatment plans, interest, and a special award were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy services beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of psychological impairment, chronic pain with functional impairment, or that a pre-existing condition precluded recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the claims for further physiotherapy and interest.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as the applicant failed to provide evidence of pre-existing conditions that would preclude recovery within the MIG.

The applicant's claims for a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were all dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she did not meet the test for non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, as medical evidence showed only soft tissue injuries and no chronic pain or pre-existing conditions precluding recovery.

Because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed physiotherapy treatment plan was denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

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

The respondent determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied several treatment plans.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that psychological impairments and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical evidence, which relied heavily on subjective reporting and lacked objective support, failed to establish a psychological impairment or chronic pain condition.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and remains subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

Pursuant to s. 40(8) of the Schedule, the disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary up to the remaining MIG limit of $168.73.

The applicant sought $21,800 for a series of assessments to determine catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the proposed psychiatric, occupational therapy, orthopaedic, neurological, and functional abilities assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence did not establish that the applicant's pain, mental health conditions, or functional limitations were caused by the accident or warranted the requested assessments.

The application for benefits and a claim for an award were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, rejecting his chiropractor's diagnoses of chronic pain and concussion as outside the practitioner's expertise.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's physiatry assessment that the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters complied with the notice requirements under the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denying her disputed treatment plans.

She argued the adjudicator misapprehended evidence by preferring a remote insurer's examination over her family doctor's records, and sought to introduce new psychological and neurological reports.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact in the original weighing of evidence.

The Tribunal also refused to admit the new reports, concluding they could have been obtained prior to the original hearing.