Nicholas Voight

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing their psychological impairments and chronic pain warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence linking the applicant's psychological diagnoses to the accident, relying on a respondent's psychological assessment that noted symptom magnification.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's medical assessment finding no objective functional impairments related to chronic pain.

As the applicant remained subject to the exhausted MIG limits, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7, as his combined physical and psychological impairments totaled 42%.

However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, finding marked impairments in three domains: social functioning, activities of daily living, and adaptation.

The Tribunal largely preferred the evidence of the applicant's neuropsychologist and mother over the insurer's assessors.

The applicant's request for costs due to alleged spoilage of evidence was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being attacked with a baseball bat by an assailant while sitting in his parked van.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that while sitting in a parked vehicle meets the purpose test, the assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The Tribunal concluded that the assault, not the use or operation of the vehicle, was the dominant feature and direct cause of the applicant's injuries.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment and assessment plans.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispute the denials.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from disputing all but one of the plans because she failed to commence her application within the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period was engaged by clear and unequivocal denial letters that included reference to the two-year limitation period.

For the remaining plan, the applicant failed to demonstrate that it was reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing knee condition, which included degenerative osteoarthritis and meniscus tears, was exacerbated by the accident, precluding recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant removed from the MIG and approved the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services, along with interest on overdue payments.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant sought removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain and psychological injuries, and claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate chronic pain with a functional impairment or a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not meet the burden of proving a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, and therefore was not entitled to an IRB.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping on black ice while opening the rear door of her parked vehicle to load items.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that while the purpose test was met, the causation test failed.

The ice was an intervening cause and the dominant feature of the injuries, not the use or operation of the automobile.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in an ATV accident and deemed catastrophically impaired.

After initially returning to work and reporting no need for housekeeping assistance, his condition deteriorated and he sought post-104-week income replacement and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer requested section 44 insurer's examinations to assess entitlement, which the applicant refused to attend.

The Tribunal found the requested examinations were reasonably necessary given the change in the applicant's condition and the lack of prior examinations for these specific benefits.

The applicant was held to be statute-barred under section 55 of the Schedule from proceeding with his application until he attends the scheduled examinations.