Dr. A. Kam

The applicant sought removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unpersuasive, noting inconsistencies in the expert report and standard test results indicating minimal depression and anxiety.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG and denied the disputed treatment plans beyond the $3,500 limit.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that only the physiotherapy treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, relying on the recommendation of the applicant's family physician.

The remaining claims for massage therapy, chiropractic treatment, occupational therapy, a qEEG assessment, and various other expenses were denied due to insufficient medical evidence or because they were incurred prior to the submission of a treatment plan.

The Tribunal also awarded the applicant 10% of the amounts withheld for two psychological treatment plans, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed funding despite having sufficient evidence to approve them.