Bryan Chin

The applicant was injured 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 for resolution.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries, which were primarily soft tissue injuries, met the definition of a minor injury.

The applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating a pre-existing condition or other reason to warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans for psychological services, attendant care, and physiotherapy were not payable, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and the injuries were not accident-related.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the right toe injury was caused by the accident, noting its absence in contemporaneous medical records.

Furthermore, medical assessments indicated the applicant had full range of motion and had returned to pre-accident activities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits and an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a pre-existing condition, physical injuries, psychological impairment, or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was not entitled to an IRB, as she had returned to full-time employment and failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG, and thus the disputed medical and rehabilitation benefits were not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal found the respondent failed to comply with the notice requirements under s. 36(4) of the Schedule regarding the non-earner benefit.

Consequently, the applicant was awarded the non-earner benefit for the period of non-compliance, along with interest.

The Tribunal also ordered a $500 award against the respondent under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 for unreasonably delaying the non-earner benefit payment.