Ryan Bowes

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's argument that the respondent's denial notice was defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, finding the notice was clear and compliant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan and dismissed her motion to exclude the respondent's section 44 insurer examination reports.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by admitting late documents, misapprehending medical evidence, and failing to find that pain relief is a reasonable goal of treatment.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no jurisdictional error, breach of procedural fairness, or errors of fact or law, noting that the reconsideration process is not an opportunity to re-litigate disagreements with the original decision or the weight assigned to evidence.

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 claimed chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, finding the applicant did not have chronic pain with a functional impairment or a psychological disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and treatable within the MIG, dismissing the claims for chiropractic services, interest, and an award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a chronic pain assessment and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, but interest on overdue payments was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied treatment plans for chronic pain and psychological assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the chronic pain and psychological assessments, plus interest, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, as the respondent had relied on its section 44 assessors.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that his accident-related impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied his claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by failing to consider or assign appropriate weight to an x-ray, an occupational therapy report, and a chiropractor's OCF-18.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate the matter and advance new arguments that were not raised at the initial hearing.

The Tribunal confirmed that because the applicant's injuries were subject to the MIG and the monetary limit had been reached, there was no error in denying the disputed treatment plans.