Michael W Chadwick

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that his post-accident psychological symptoms were caused by the accident, noting extensive pre-accident psychiatric history and minimal post-accident medical records referencing the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychiatric assessor, who found no appreciable connection between the accident and the applicant's condition.

Consequently, the claims for catastrophic impairment, disputed medical benefits for a chronic pain program and psychological treatment, an award, and interest were all dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by misinterpreting the AMA Guides, improperly weighing the evidence of her chiropractor regarding psychological and substance abuse impairments, and violating procedural fairness.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact, as it was beyond the scope of a chiropractor to assign ratings for psychological impairments or diagnose substance abuse disorders.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found she was subject to the 2016 Schedule's catastrophic impairment definition and barred from disputing income replacement benefits.

The respondent argued the request was premature.

The adjudicator agreed and dismissed the request, noting that under Cura v. Aviva Insurance Canada, a request for reconsideration is only permitted on a decision that finally disposes of an appeal.

Since the applicant's appeal remained live with several issues pending for a substantive hearing, the reconsideration request was premature.

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

The respondent denied the treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove causation, as he was involved in a subsequent accident that aggravated his injuries, and the medical evidence did not establish that the subject accident was the necessary cause of the impairments.

Furthermore, relying on the insurer's examination report, the Tribunal concluded the treatment was not reasonable and necessary as the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and derived no long-term benefit from prior extensive chiropractic care.

The application was dismissed, along with claims for interest and an award.

The respondent insurer sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision awarding the applicant post-104 week Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

The insurer argued the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test by referencing the applicant's inability to return to 'full-time' work rather than a 'complete inability' to engage in any employment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal had correctly stated the post-104 week test and properly concluded, based on the evidence of the applicant's need for pacing and extended breaks, that she suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment.

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

The insurer denied various treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries that had resolved, and she failed to provide compelling evidence that pre-existing conditions or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's psychological claims, finding her depression and anxiety were caused by her husband's terminal illness and death, not the accident.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, all claims for treatment plans, medication, interest, and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in an all-terrain vehicle rollover and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criteria 6 or 7, preferring the respondent's medical assessments over the applicant's, noting that the applicant's chiropractor improperly assigned ratings outside his scope of practice and without conducting in-person assessments.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer marked impairments in the spheres of function under Criterion 8.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $9,977.20 in overpaid income replacement benefits to the respondent, plus interest.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while riding her bicycle and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits (IRBs) and denied a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to post-104-week IRBs, as her cognitive impairments, fatigue, and required pacing strategies rendered her completely unable to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

However, the Tribunal denied the physiotherapy treatment plan, finding no ongoing physical impairments that necessitated it.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was also dismissed, as the insurer reasonably relied on its assessors' medical opinions.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for physiotherapy and psychological services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer's examinations and argued that the applicant's physical impairments were caused by a subsequent bicycle accident.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including reports from the applicant's family physician and section 25 assessors, established that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary and causally linked to the subject accident.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the treatment plans with interest, but declined to order a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664, finding insufficient evidence that the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment and medical benefits for psychological and physiotherapy treatment, following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's psychological issues were pre-existing and unrelated to the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, as he presented no medical evidence to support his claims, while the respondent's expert evidence established that his psychiatric condition predated the accident.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.