Dr. G. Yee

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained soft tissue injuries and did not suffer from chronic pain or a psychological injury caused by the accident.

Consequently, the applicant was subject to the MIG and its funding limits, precluding entitlement to the disputed medical and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, medications, massage therapy, and acupuncture.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying in part on an independent medical examination.

The Tribunal found the ongoing in-clinic physiotherapy and prescribed medications were reasonable and necessary, rejecting the respondent's expert opinion that the applicant only needed a home-based exercise regimen.

The Tribunal denied the expenses for massage therapy, physiotherapy, and acupuncture incurred before a treatment plan was submitted.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue payments and $300 in costs for the respondent's late motion to change the hearing format.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that diagnoses of a rotator cuff injury, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological injuries removed them from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that the medical evidence did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome or a psychological injury.

As the applicant had exhausted the MIG funding limit, the claims for additional medical benefits and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for three physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 cap had been reached.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that her injuries were more than predominantly minor or that she had a pre-existing medical condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG cap.

The application was dismissed as the applicant also failed to provide evidence that the disputed expenses had been incurred.

The applicant was injured when a Toronto Transit Commission bus suddenly stopped, causing her to fall and fracture her right arm.

She applied for a non-earner benefit and an attendant care benefit, which the respondent denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical and surveillance evidence showed she could still engage in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also denied the attendant care benefit because the applicant failed to submit an Assessment of Attendant Care Needs form prior to the claimed period and did not prove she required assistance beyond the date the form was eventually submitted.

The application was dismissed.