Ryan Olson

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that neither treatment plan was substantively reasonable and necessary, as contemporaneous medical records did not corroborate the applicant's reports of accident-related physical injuries.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the insurer's denial notice for the physiotherapy treatment plan failed to comply with the specificity requirements of s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Consequently, the physiotherapy treatment plan was deemed payable under s. 38(11).

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairments and chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence linking her psychological complaints or ongoing pain to a functional impairment caused by the accident.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also found the insurer complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule and dismissed the claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, chiropractic, and psychological treatment following a 2021 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on insurer examination reports indicating the applicant's soft-tissue and psychological injuries had resolved, and noted significant gaps in the applicant's medical complaints.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for psychotherapy services at an hourly rate of $149.61, arguing that a psychotherapist should be paid the same rate as a psychologist.

The respondent had approved the treatment plan but at a rate of $99.75 per hour, which is the standard rate for psychotherapy services not covered by the Professional Services Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the higher rate was reasonable and necessary, noting the lack of evidence justifying the psychologist rate for a psychotherapist.

The claims for the balance of the treatment cost, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the treatment plans for chiropractic services and 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 establish on a balance of probabilities that he suffered an accident-related psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the claims for treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and an attendant care assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting that the injuries were primarily soft tissue and the applicant's hand injury was from a subsequent fall.

The Tribunal also found no evidence supporting the need for an attendant care assessment.

The claims for an award and interest were dismissed.