Dr. David Huang

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain with functional impairment and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet her burden to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting inconsistencies in her expert reports and a lack of documented functional impairment in her primary care records.

As the MIG applied, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

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

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).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his injuries, including alleged post-concussion syndrome, psychological impairments, and chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer examinations over the applicant's self-reported symptoms and chiropractor's report.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic treatment, a chronic pain assessment, a neurological assessment, and a concussion assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examinations and the applicant's own family doctors' clinical notes, which did not corroborate the need for the proposed assessments or treatments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and two treatment plans for chronic pain and attendant care assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove entitlement to the IRB and that his application for the benefit was incomplete due to his failure to submit an Election of Income Replacement, Non-Earner or Caregiver Benefit form (OCF-10).

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on the unrefuted opinion of the respondent's physiatrist that the applicant's injuries were soft tissue in nature.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming two treatment plans for physiotherapy (Pilates and massage therapy) and one for an occupational therapy assessment.

The adjudicator found the physiotherapy treatment plans reasonable and necessary to alleviate pain and improve function, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating and assessing practitioners over the insurer's examination assessor.

However, the hourly rate for the Pilates instructor was reduced to the unregulated provider rate, and the second plan was subject to deduction for available collateral benefits.

The claim for an occupational therapy assessment was dismissed as the adjudicator found it was not reasonable and necessary, relying on a recent comprehensive functional capacity evaluation.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for housekeeping and home maintenance services, as well as the cost of an assessment, following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding his pre- and post-accident housekeeping activities to be unreliable, inconsistent, and exaggerated.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his housekeeping tasks and that the claimed expenses were not reasonable or necessary.

The request for the cost of the assessment was also denied as it amounted to a duplication of services.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, medical, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Pre-approved Framework Guideline for Whiplash Associated Disorder Grade II (WAD II).

The arbitrator found that the applicant's impairments did not fall outside the WAD II Guideline, relying on independent assessments and surveillance evidence showing the applicant working and driving.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for further medical treatment, income replacement, and housekeeping benefits, and ordered the applicant to repay an overpayment of income replacement benefits.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as the insurer acted reasonably.