Branson Wong

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 plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to correct the misnomer of several John Doe defendants, identifying them as specific treating physicians and a wound care provider (ParaMed).

The underlying action involved allegations of medical malpractice relating to the development and failure to treat the deceased's bedsores at various care facilities.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing it was an attempt to add parties after the expiry of the strict two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that the pleadings were drafted with sufficient particularity such that the 'litigation finger' pointed squarely at the proposed defendants, and that a properly informed defendant would have recognized they were the target of the allegations.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the proposed defendants.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and funding for a psychiatric assessment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The adjudicator also approved the $2,200.00 treatment plan for a psychiatric assessment as reasonable and necessary.

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

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for two physiotherapy treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the December 2023 treatment plan for $1,828.10 was reasonable and necessary based on the recommendations of the applicant's family physician and an orthopaedic surgeon.

However, the Tribunal denied the remaining $117.07 from a July 2023 treatment plan because neither party provided submissions regarding the disputed amount.

The application was granted in part, with interest payable on overdue benefits.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, supported by clinical notes and a psychological report, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved a $2,200 treatment plan for a psychiatric assessment as reasonable and necessary.

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

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

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

The applicant argued that a pre-existing condition warranted removal from the MIG under s. 18(2) of the Schedule.

However, the applicant failed to file any evidence or authorities for the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the burden of proof to establish that a pre-existing condition precluded recovery within the MIG.

Consequently, the injuries were deemed predominantly minor, the treatment plans were not considered, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing right-leg fracture and an accident-related psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal afforded little weight to the applicant's psychological assessment due to a lack of corroborating medical records and reliability issues.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, her claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain assessment, a driving assessment, and physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous and supportive medical evidence to demonstrate that the proposed assessments and treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's medical records showed a significant gap in treatment, and the psychological and chronic pain reports were either outdated or authored long after the requests were made.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, and claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming unapproved amounts for psychological services and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the psychotherapist services warranted an hourly rate above the prescribed minimum in the FSRA Professional Services Guidelines.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to support the claims for progress reports, brokerage services, and service planning.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied his claim for a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by failing to diligently review evidence and erred in fact and law regarding the causation of his carpal tunnel syndrome and chronic pain.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and no error of law or fact, noting that disagreement with the weighing of evidence does not meet the high threshold for reconsideration.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that his chronic pain and carpal tunnel syndrome warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a causal link between the accident and his carpal tunnel syndrome, and that there was insufficient medical evidence of a functional impairment caused by chronic pain.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and his claims for a physiotherapy treatment plan and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for an orthopaedic assessment, assistive devices, chiropractic services, and a non-earner benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, largely due to a lack of supporting medical evidence and failure to submit the OCF-18 forms.

The Tribunal also denied the non-earner benefit, relying on insurer examinations and surveillance evidence showing the applicant continued to engage in normal daily activities and employment.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing psychological condition, an accident-related psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that a pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery, preferred the respondent's psychological assessment finding no accident-related psychological impairment, and found insufficient evidence of chronic pain.

The application was dismissed.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant's representative withdrew prior to the hearing, and the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence under s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof to demonstrate removal from the Minor Injury Guideline or entitlement to the disputed benefits, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

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 argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims of pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide submissions or evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, relying on section 44 assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she was able to engage in lighter tasks and various activities of daily living.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired in a motor vehicle accident, sought payment for outstanding balances on five treatment plans (OCF-18s) that were partially denied by the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the full $200 form completion fees for case management, occupational therapy, and social work plans, as well as the outstanding balance for laser therapy and acupuncture due to the respondent's failure to provide proper medical reasons for denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for transportation costs and additional social work session time, finding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

The applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was also dismissed.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, claiming her injuries were more than minor and that she suffered a psychological impairment and a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, relying on medical assessments that showed only soft tissue injuries and no clinical criteria for psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was not entitled to non-earner benefits, as an occupational therapy assessment demonstrated she was independent in most activities of daily living.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing she should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing shoulder condition and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that her pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, her claims for psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans, as well as interest, were dismissed.

The applicant sought $1,813.83 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the respondent failed to respond to the treatment plan within 10 business days under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, and was therefore prohibited from relying on the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Tribunal found the respondent responded within 10 days of receiving the plan via HCAI, and provided sufficient medical reasons for denial.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plan was denied.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.