Keisha De Coteau-Nedd

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 subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, as she failed to establish that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments warranted removal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for an income replacement benefit (IRB), finding she did not prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment during the pre-104-week period.

Claims for a treatment plan, an award, and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including psychological services, physiotherapy, and assessments for chronic pain and orthopedic issues.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

Specifically, the Tribunal ruled that a psychotherapist is not entitled to the same hourly rate as a psychologist under the Professional Services Guideline absent evidence of equivalent services or close supervision.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's independent medical examination report, which concluded the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The applicant sought $3,445.28 for physical therapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plan, and the applicant argued the denial letter failed to provide adequate medical reasons under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the insurer's reasons were adequate and specific to the applicant's condition.

Because the applicant provided no evidence or submissions to demonstrate the treatment was reasonable and necessary, the claim was dismissed.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming unapproved balances for a psychological assessment and psychological services, as well as a treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the claimed costs for the psychological assessment were reasonable.

The Tribunal also held the applicant failed to justify paying a psychotherapist at a psychologist's hourly rate, and lacked sufficient medical evidence to establish that the chiropractic and massage therapy treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, in-home yoga therapy, assistive devices, and handrails following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's accident-related physical injuries had largely resolved and that her ongoing pain was due to non-accident-related conditions such as arthritis and fibromyalgia.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to link her balance issues and need for assistive devices to the accident.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal awarded $225.63 for chiropractic services but denied claims for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and income replacement benefits due to insufficient evidence and failure to comply with procedural requirements.

The Tribunal also ordered a $75.00 award under O. Reg. 664 against the respondent for unreasonably ignoring medical evidence of the applicant's psychological condition.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent insurer on the basis that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome or continuous functional impairment arising from accident-related chronic pain.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain under the AMA Guides.

Consequently, the applicant remains subject to the MIG and is not entitled to the disputed treatment plan for physiotherapy.

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).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of functional limitations inconsistent with his treating physician's clinical notes and gave little weight to his expert's psychological diagnosis.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for treatment plans, assessments, interest, and a section 10 award.

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

The insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 limit, denying two treatment plans for physiotherapy and chiropractic services.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and an aggravated pre-existing shoulder injury warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting a lack of medical evidence supporting chronic pain and a significant gap in treatment.

However, pursuant to s. 40(8) of the Schedule, the disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary up to the remaining MIG limit, plus interest.