Nickola Haddad

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his psychological injuries and pre-existing conditions warranted treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing back pain and anxiety did not preclude his recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, finding the applicant's anxiety and depression were primarily related to personal stressors rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG funding limit.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence insufficient to establish functional impairment from chronic pain or a diagnosable psychological injury, preferring the respondent's s. 44 assessments.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claims for an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a T7 vertebral fracture.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's orthopaedic surgeon, finding the fracture was not accident-related.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, she was subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and the disputed treatment plans exceeding that limit were not payable.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but neither party filed submissions.

The respondent advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached and a Notice of Withdrawal would be filed, but no such notice was received despite multiple follow-ups.

Because the applicant failed to provide any submissions or evidence, he did not meet his evidentiary burden.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied several treatment plans and barred him from disputing a treatment plan for a Kubota tractor due to non-attendance at insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request regarding the Kubota tractor, car repair devices, and an outstanding treatment plan balance, finding no errors of law or fact.

However, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration in part, finding it had erred by applying an unduly narrow interpretation of 'objective medical evidence' for a mattress and pillow, and by failing to consider all stated goals for a John Deere lawn mower.

The applicant was awarded entitlement to the mattress, pillow, and lawn mower treatment plans, with interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she sustained a predominantly minor injury and was limited to $3,500 in medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in giving little weight to a doctor's concussion diagnosis and demonstrated bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error in assigning limited weight to a diagnosis based solely on reported symptoms without physical examination or testing, and noting that disagreement with a finding does not establish bias.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was precluded from claiming IRBs due to the late submission of a disability certificate (OCF-3), which was provided over four years post-accident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, concluding the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft-tissue injuries and did not suffer from significant psychological impairments.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The issues in dispute were whether the applicant's injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), entitlement to $4,200 for psychotherapy treatment, interest, and an award.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment (post-traumatic stress disorder) as a result of the accident, warranting removal from the MIG.

However, the claim for $4,200 in psychotherapy treatment was denied because the expense was incurred before a treatment plan (OCF-18) was submitted, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

Claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and chronic pain, and that pre-existing conditions prevented her recovery under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing her injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove she sustained a concussion or chronic pain, giving little weight to her family doctor's diagnosis which lacked objective testing.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that her pre-existing conditions affected her recovery.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG and was not entitled to the disputed physiotherapy benefits or interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a full-thickness shoulder tear warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the injuries were minor and the shoulder tear was not accident-related.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove causation, noting a lack of contemporaneous complaints, a subsequent snow-shoveling injury, and a two-and-a-half-year delay before the ultrasound.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plan was denied.