Dr. Alan Chan

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant met his onus to be removed from the MIG based on chronic pain with a functional impairment, relying on clinical notes from his family physician and treating specialists.

Consequently, the Tribunal approved three disputed physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, as the applicant provided no submissions to counter the respondent's psychological assessment.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue physiotherapy benefits but declined to order an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and several treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, and assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he continued to engage in most pre-accident activities with only reduced frequency.

The Tribunal approved a physiotherapy treatment plan for $3,651.22, finding it reasonable and necessary for the applicant's soft-tissue injuries.

However, the Tribunal denied the psychological treatment and assessment plans, preferring the respondent's expert evidence that the applicant suffered only psychological sequelae and did not require treatment.

A chronic pain assessment was also denied.

A claim for a section 10 award was dismissed for failure to provide particulars.

Interest was awarded on the overdue physiotherapy benefits.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the burden of proving her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, which included comprehensive reviews of medical records and in-person assessments, over the applicant's evidence, which was found to be contradictory and lacking in documentary review.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's expert evidence which noted credibility issues and inconsistent effort during testing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of the applicant's pre-accident employment as a window packer.

All claims, including those for disputed treatment plans and interest, were dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and two treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on multiple independent medical examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the tests for both pre-104 and post-104 IRB, as he suffered from a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, noting that the respondent's assessors evaluated the applicant in silos and failed to provide an integrated assessment of his physical and psychological impairments.

The treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment were deemed reasonable and necessary.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of functional impairment from chronic pain and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, concluding she did not suffer a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that pre-existing lateral epicondylitis and accident-related psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

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

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which concluded the applicant did not suffer a psychological injury.

As the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically funding for psychotherapy services and a chronic pain assessment.

The adjudicator found the psychotherapy treatment plan reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's own psychological assessment which indicated the applicant needed further treatment to reach maximal recovery.

However, the claim for a chronic pain assessment was dismissed, as the applicant had returned to full-time work, had large gaps in treatment, and the respondent's medical examinations concluded further assessment was unnecessary.

The applicant was awarded the psychotherapy benefits with interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain program and assistive devices (a lawn mower and snow blower) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the chronic pain program was not reasonable and necessary, relying on insurer's examinations indicating the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and was an adaptive pain coper.

The Tribunal also denied the assistive devices, noting the applicant's pre-accident inability to perform lawn care and snow removal tasks.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's psychological impairments (adjustment disorder and specific phobia) removed him from the MIG.

The adjudicator ordered the respondent to pay for several chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary, and noting the insurer's failure to comply with the 10-day notice requirement under s. 38(8) of the Schedule for some plans.

Claims for a driving re-integration assessment and a chronic pain assessment were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments, but both parties' claims for costs under Rule 19.1 were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments, including adjustment disorder and specific phobia, removed her from the Guideline.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's assessor, noting the respondent's own testing showed the applicant tended to minimize her distress.

The Tribunal awarded the costs of examinations for psychological and chronic pain assessments, along with interest, but denied the claims for physiotherapy treatment plans as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for costs was also denied.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a rehabilitation benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator excluded late-filed medical reports submitted by the applicant in reply, finding their admission would prejudice the respondent.

Applying the Heath test, the adjudicator found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidence showed she continued to perform most of her pre-accident caregiving and household activities.

The claim for the rehabilitation benefit was dismissed for lack of evidence that it was reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest, costs, and a special award were also dismissed.