3 total
Application for statutory accident benefits dismissed; applicant failed to establish grounds for removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.
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 contended that pre-existing depression and anxiety, as well as a psychological impairment caused by the accident, precluded maximal recovery within the MIG.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his pre-existing conditions or alleged psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG, noting that his psychological symptoms were likely a recurrence of pre-existing issues exacerbated by the discontinuation of medication.
As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered.
Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.
Application for income replacement and medical benefits dismissed due to lack of credible medical evidence.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits for chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.
The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding the applicant lacked credibility due to contradictory evidence regarding his return to work and pre-existing chronic back pain.
The applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a driver.
Furthermore, the adjudicator found the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant provided insufficient medical evidence linking his ongoing complaints to the accident.
Motion granted to validate service on corporate defendant and permit substituted service on individual defendant.
The plaintiff brought a motion to validate service of a statement of claim on a corporate defendant and to extend the time for service and permit substituted service on an individual defendant via a non-party insurer.
The action arose from a motor vehicle accident.
The court validated service on the corporate defendant, finding it was properly served at its registered office address.
The court also granted the extension of time and substituted service on the individual defendant, finding no actual prejudice caused by the delay and that the proposed method of service would reasonably bring the claim to his attention.
