Dr. Bui

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physical therapy, a chronic pain assessment, and a psychological assessment following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The physical therapy claims lacked contemporaneous medical support, the chronic pain assessor was not qualified to diagnose chronic pain, and the psychological complaints were pre-existing and unrelated to the accident.

The application was dismissed and no interest was payable.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments as a result of the accident, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for several treatment plans for physical rehabilitation, a social work assessment, and a disability certificate, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the claim for a functional abilities evaluation was dismissed as the applicant had returned to work.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant was entitled to medical benefits for social work counselling and physiotherapy, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors and the respondent's own psychological assessor over the respondent's paper-review orthopaedic assessment.

The adjudicator noted the applicant suffered from accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The claim for the cost of an OCF-3 was denied as it was not requested by the insurer and provided no new medical information.

The respondent's request for costs under Rule 19.1, alleging the applicant's reply was inflammatory, was dismissed as the conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant sought payment for various medical treatments, assessments, disability certificates, and Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment that would remove him from the MIG.

Consequently, the claims for medical benefits and assessments were denied.

Furthermore, while the applicant may have been entitled to IRBs, he failed to provide sufficient financial records to calculate the quantum, resulting in an award of $0 per week.