Dr. James Choi

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment and chronic pain that exceeded the MIG definition, relying on evidence from the applicant's treating practitioners and admissions from the respondent's own assessors.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed physiotherapy, psychological assessments, psychological services, and chronic pain assessment, along with interest.

However, the Tribunal declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding insufficient evidence that the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed her shoulder injury, psychological impairments, and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the shoulder injury was likely a pre-existing condition related to her employment as a personal support worker and was not caused by the accident.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of an accident-related psychological impairment or functional limitations due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were subject to the MIG and dismissed the claims for additional medical benefits, examination expenses, interest, and an award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied attendant care benefits for the initial period because the expenses were not incurred by the applicant's daughters.

However, the Tribunal granted attendant care benefits for a subsequent period, finding them reasonable and necessary, and deemed the expenses incurred because the insurer unreasonably withheld payment by relying on an insurer's examination without explaining why it preferred that report over contemporaneous medical evidence.

The Tribunal also approved a treatment plan for life skills training.

Due to the insurer's lack of transparency and unreasonable conduct in denying the attendant care benefits, the Tribunal ordered a special award of 35% under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, plus interest.

The applicant sought medical benefits and examination costs following a rear-end collision, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and a pre-existing condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet his onus.

The medical evidence showed the applicant did not seek immediate treatment, had subsequent accidents, and lacked objective evidence of functional limitations or severe psychological symptoms caused by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and dismissed the application, finding no basis for an award for delayed payment.