Nolan Cattell

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

The insurer denied various physiotherapy treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence, such as corroborating evidence of chronic pain, to warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected the Applicant's argument that the treatment plans were payable under s. 38(11) of the Schedule, finding that the insurer had provided reasonable explanations for its denials and complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8).

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant was not subject to the MIG due to chronic pain and associated functional impairments.

The Tribunal granted the proposed chiropractic treatment plan, finding it reasonable and necessary to manage pain symptoms, and awarded interest on this plan.

However, the Tribunal denied the claim for a non-earner benefit, as the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and denied the psychological assessment due to insufficient evidence linking the psychological impairments to the accident.

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

The respondent denied a $2,200 psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing conditions or provisional psychological diagnoses warranted removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plan and claim for interest were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to examine two non-parties (the plaintiff's supervisor and a human resources representative) regarding the plaintiff's employment performance and termination.

The plaintiff alleged loss of income and earning capacity due to a motor vehicle accident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to satisfy the first conjunctive factor of Rule 31.10(2)(a), as they had not demonstrated that they were unable to obtain the information from the plaintiff or that the plaintiff had constructively refused to provide it.

The court noted that the plaintiff had answered questions to the best of her ability and had provided her employment file, and that the defendants had not asked her to undertake to inquire further from her former employer.