Dr. John W. Lee

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant's claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed as she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

However, the adjudicator found that the respondent's denial notices for two treatment plans were non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, rendering the respondent liable to pay the incurred expenses under s. 38(11).

Claims for accounting reports and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for chiropractic, massage, and chronic pain treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction and made errors of law and fact by determining she did not suffer from chronic pain and that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it had jurisdiction to assess the severity of the injuries and the reasonableness of the treatment plans, and that it made no error in weighing the medical evidence to conclude the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the insurer's medical examinations which showed the applicant's pain did not significantly impede his function and that he had returned to physical work.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the disputed plans exceeded the $3,500 limit, the application for the treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various treatment plans for chiropractic, psychological, and chronic pain services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the cost of personal protective equipment was not covered, the proposed hourly rate for a psychotherapist was not justified, and the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, concluding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain and that her ongoing knee issues were related to pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

The applicant sought payment for psychological and orthopaedic assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective evidence to demonstrate that the assessments were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of several treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, as well as a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the chiropractic treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the insurer's physiatrist's evidence that there was no ongoing physical impairment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for further psychological services, noting the insurer had already approved a partially reasonable treatment plan and the applicant provided no evidence of ongoing need.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the chronic pain assessment due to a lack of objective evidence establishing that the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's pain.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.