Angel Ju

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic (CAT) impairment due to psychological issues following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found significant inconsistencies in the applicant's reported pre- and post-accident functioning, noting she continued to work for two and a half years post-accident.

The Tribunal determined that an intervening volleyball injury in 2018 was the actual cause of her decline in function and inability to work.

Relying on the respondent's psychological assessment which identified symptom exaggeration, the Tribunal concluded the accident was not a necessary cause of her impairments.

The application for CAT status, IRBs, interest, and an award was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal first determined that the applicant's claim for a March 2018 treatment plan was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Schedule, as the application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period and the applicant failed to provide evidence to justify an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG on the basis of a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain.

As the disputed treatment plans exceeded the $3,500 MIG limit, they were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis warranted removal from the MIG, as these conditions prevented her from reaching maximum medical recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the disputed $873.72 for chiropractic services, finding the treatment reasonable and necessary, along with interest on the overdue payment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairment (depression) removed her from the Minor Injury Guideline.

However, the Tribunal dismissed her claim for an income replacement benefit, finding that her gynecological issues were pre-existing and not caused by the accident, and that her musculoskeletal and psychological impairments did not result in a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as an Uber Eats driver.

Claims for an attendant care assessment and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an automobile accident.

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing it was not required to pay income replacement benefits under s. 31(1) of the Schedule because the applicant intentionally failed to disclose a material change in risk.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had moved from Brantford to Toronto and intentionally failed to notify the insurer of this change of address, which would have significantly increased his insurance premiums.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the respondent was not required to pay the applicant an income replacement benefit.