Nicole A Dowling

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a May 2020 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied treatment plans for chiropractic, psychological, and psychiatric services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG, noting a subsequent accident in June 2024 complicated causation.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters complied with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing.

The applicant also failed to attend previous case conferences and did not provide any evidence or submissions.

The adjudicator proceeded in the applicant's absence, dismissed the application for lack of evidence, and ordered the applicant to pay $750 in costs to the respondent for their unreasonable conduct and failure to participate in the Tribunal's processes.

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).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence, such as clinical notes and records from his family doctor, to substantiate his claims of chronic pain or a psychological condition.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, an award, or interest.

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).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his physical or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent was compliant with the response requirements under s. 38 of the Schedule.

The application for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a 2006 automobile accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by mischaracterizing evidence, failing to give sufficient weight to his testimony, and violating procedural fairness by relying on hearsay medical records over live testimony.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal properly weighed contemporaneous documentary evidence over unreliable testimony and that the applicant's procedural fairness rights were not violated as he had the opportunity to test the hearsay evidence but chose not to.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder following a 2006 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent argued that the applicant's impairments were moderate and caused entirely by a previous accident in 2002.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a marked impairment in any of the four areas of function, noting his ability to drive, live independently, and pass a licensing exam.

The Tribunal also concluded that the 2006 accident did not cause the impairments.

The application for catastrophic impairment and an award for delayed payments was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found inconsistencies in the applicant's self-reporting to various assessors, including failing to disclose a post-accident trip to Hawaii, criminal charges, and a subsequent motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to prove she suffered a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to satisfy the 'but for' causation test, as the evidence did not establish the 2016 accident was a necessary cause of her psychological impairments.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and limited medical and rehabilitation benefits to $3,500.

The applicant argued that a pre-existing neck condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that the pre-existing condition impeded recovery, preferring the expert opinion of the insurer's examiner over the clinical notes of the applicant's family physician.

The Tribunal held the applicant was subject to the MIG limit but was entitled to partial payment of a physiotherapy treatment plan up to the remaining $84.09 of the limit, plus interest.