Kelvin Brown

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 $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries, including sprains, strains, and a partial cartilage tear, were predominantly minor.

The applicant failed to establish that he suffered from chronic pain that would remove him from the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the insurer's notices denying two treatment plans for physiotherapy, massage therapy, and assistive devices were deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, rendering them payable.

However, a separate treatment plan for assistive devices was denied as a duplication of services.

The Tribunal also denied the disputed balance of a psychological treatment plan and a proposed orthopaedic assessment, finding the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits and several treatment plans for physiotherapy, Botox, and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the disputed benefits were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors and the applicant's treating neurologist, which did not support the proposed treatments.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed as no benefits were payable and there was no evidence of unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming a chronic pain assessment and a chronic pain treatment program.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims.

The Tribunal found the assessment expense was incurred prior to the submission of the treatment plan, contravening section 38(2) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove she suffered from an accident-related chronic pain condition, preferring the respondent's medical evidence which showed she had reached maximum medical improvement and maintained a normal life.

Claims for a Regulation 664 award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application as abandoned because the applicant failed to file written submissions.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion because the respondent's supporting evidence related to a different file.

However, proceeding with the written hearing, the adjudicator dismissed the application for benefits because the applicant failed to file any evidence or submissions, thereby failing to discharge his burden of proving a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to show her injuries fell outside the MIG, including failing to meet the criteria for chronic pain.

The Tribunal also found the requested treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant provided no evidence of treatment goals or incurred expenses.

The application was dismissed.