Dr. Andrew Woo

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, medical benefits for physiotherapy, and the cost of a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first allowed the applicant's late-filed medical evidence due to an administrative error.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit because he failed to provide a comparison of his pre- and post-accident activities.

The physiotherapy treatment plan was denied as the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden and the respondent's medical evidence indicated he had reached maximum medical recovery.

However, the Tribunal granted the cost of the chronic pain assessment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain specialist over the respondent's orthopaedic surgeon.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits for physiotherapy and assistive devices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a marble shop worker, which involved medium physical demand level work, and granted the IRBs.

However, the Tribunal denied the medical benefits for physiotherapy due to a lack of specificity in the treatment plan, and denied the assistive devices because there was no evidence linking the applicant's foot pathology to the accident.

Interest was awarded on the overdue IRBs.