Zachary Berg

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, finding insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain meeting the AMA Guides criteria.

The applicant's injuries were deemed subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and the application for additional treatment plans was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), rejecting claims of chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairment.

However, the Tribunal held that the insurer failed to provide compliant denial notices under section 38(8) of the Schedule for both a physiotherapy treatment plan and a chronic pain assessment.

As a result, the insurer was prohibited from relying on the MIG for the periods of non-compliance and ordered to pay the incurred costs plus interest.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed.

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).

The applicant argued that the adjudicator erred in law and fact by failing to properly consider medical evidence, including MRI results and clinical notes, regarding his chronic pain and physical impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate his case and reweigh evidence already considered.

The Tribunal concluded that no error of law or fact was made that would have led to a different result.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

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

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for physiotherapy, an orthopaedic assessment, and a chronic pain assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a lumbar disc protrusion and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish non-minor physical impairments or chronic pain, noting the lack of an in-person physical examination by the applicant's assessor and the respondent's assessor's findings of normal range of motion.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, an award, or interest.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving entitlement to the benefits.

The medical evidence, including reports from her family doctors and an insurer's examination, did not support a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

Furthermore, the applicant's submissions lacked legal argument and failed to connect the medical evidence to the accident.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after experiencing a severe psychological reaction when her vehicle's fuel tank emptied underneath her car due to a mechanical error.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the two-part test from Caughy and found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The Tribunal concluded that the improper installation of the fuel pump was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the injuries was observing the leak, not the use or operation of the vehicle.

The application was dismissed.