Full Success at the Licence Appeal Tribunal: Dayana Soto Santana Secures Victory on All 10 Issues

Complete Success on All Issues

In a recent decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the applicant achieved a complete success across all issues in dispute, with paralegal Dayana Soto Santana securing a decisive outcome on all 10 issues in dispute. The Tribunal ruled entirely in the applicant’s favour, confirming that the applicant was not subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and approving all disputed physiotherapy treatment plans, as well as all psychological, neurological, and orthopaedic assessments. The Tribunal also awarded interest on all overdue benefits. As a result, the applicant is no longer limited by the $3,500 MIG cap and is entitled to the full scope of treatment and assessment funding sought.

Removing the Applicant from the MIG

This outcome was driven by a focused and well-supported litigation strategy. A central issue in the case was whether the applicant’s injuries fell within the MIG. Dayana Soto Santana successfully established that they did not by advancing strong medical and functional evidence demonstrating that the applicant’s impairments extended beyond what is contemplated under the MIG. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s condition, including documented functional limitations and ongoing symptoms, warranted removal from the guideline. While not necessary to the final determination, Soto Santana also reinforced the presence of ongoing pain and functional impairment, further strengthening the applicant’s position.

Challenging the Insurer’s Evidence

Equally important was the effective challenge to the insurer’s medical evidence. The respondent relied on assessments suggesting that the applicant’s injuries were minor and did not warrant treatment beyond the MIG. Soto Santana demonstrated that these opinions were inconsistent with the broader medical record and failed to account for the full scope of the applicant’s symptoms and limitations. By contrast, the evidence from treating practitioners was shown to be more consistent and reliable, leading the Tribunal to assign it greater weight and reject the insurer’s position.

Proving Reasonableness and Necessity of Treatment

Soto Santana also established that every treatment and assessment plan in dispute was reasonable and necessary. This was done by clearly identifying treatment goals—such as pain reduction, improved functioning, and return to normal activities—and linking those goals to the applicant’s accident-related impairments through consistent medical documentation, including physician notes, imaging, and ongoing therapy records. This comprehensive evidentiary approach led the Tribunal to approve all plans in full.

Strong Procedural Advocacy

Finally, the case reflects strong procedural advocacy. Soto Santana successfully defended the inclusion of slightly overlength submissions and responded to allegations that reply materials contained new evidence by demonstrating that they were proper rebuttal materials. These procedural arguments ensured that the applicant’s full evidentiary record was considered.

A Complete Litigation Victory

Overall, this decision represents a complete litigation success, with Dayana Soto Santana prevailing on all 10 issues in dispute and securing full entitlement to benefits, along with interest. It underscores the importance of cohesive medical evidence, strategic rebuttal of insurer reports, and a clear demonstration of how accident-related impairments impact an individual’s functioning.