Kal Stoykov

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and a psychological assessment following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the treatment and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish causation on a balance of probabilities, noting that contemporaneous medical records did not link her knee, back, and chest pain to the accident, but rather to subsequent intervening incidents including a fall at home, a boating incident, and a trip and fall.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to chiropractic treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law regarding the medical evidence of causation, the severity of a subsequent accident, and the refusal to extend a limitation period for a denied treatment plan.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have likely resulted in a different decision.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and that a subsequent accident caused the chronic pain.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding one treatment plan was statute-barred as it was appealed beyond the two-year limitation period without justification for an extension.

The Tribunal further held the remaining chiropractic plans were not reasonable and necessary, as previous similar treatments had been ineffective and the applicant failed to prove his impairments extended beyond minor soft tissue injuries.

Finally, the request for a chronic pain assessment was denied because the applicant failed to establish causation linking the chronic pain to the first accident rather than the second.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer examinations which found no objective physical impairments and concluded that the applicant's psychological symptoms were related to pre-existing behavioural issues rather than the accident.

The adjudicator agreed with the respondent's medical experts, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.