Alyson Spaling

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal applied the Heath test and found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidence showed he had resumed many activities, albeit with some modifications.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments but denied the physical treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not need to be removed from the MIG again for physical injuries, but still bore the burden of proving the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

Relying on the respondent's physiatrist assessment and drawing an adverse inference from the applicant's failure to produce clinical notes, the Tribunal concluded the chiropractic treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, massage therapy, and a chiropractic assessment following two motor vehicle accidents.

The adjudicator dismissed the claim for physiotherapy because the expenses were incurred before a treatment plan was submitted, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The claim for massage therapy and a chiropractic assessment was also dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, with medical evidence suggesting a home exercise program was sufficient.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The Estate Trustees moved for court approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Minutes of Settlement (MOS), and to enforce the MOU against a beneficiary.

The court found that the beneficiary's consent to the MOU was conditional on obtaining independent legal advice, which was subsequently withdrawn.

The MOS, negotiated without all parties, contained terms significantly different from the MOU.

The court ruled that the MOU was void due to the withdrawal of conditional consent, and the MOS could not be approved as it was not agreed to by all parties and contained inconsistent terms.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were directed to update estate information for further proceedings.