Dr. Michael Fung

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from disputing a 2019 physiotherapy treatment plan because she failed to apply within the two-year limitation period, and there were no reasonable grounds to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as she failed to establish that her chronic pain or psychological impairments were caused by the subject accident rather than a prior 2016 accident.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of several treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, and an attendant care assessment, as well as a claim for a special award.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the physiotherapy plan or the attendant care assessment due to a lack of objective medical evidence demonstrating functional limitations.

However, the Tribunal granted the outstanding balances for four psychological treatment plans, preferring the treating psychologist's recommendation for 1.5-hour sessions over the insurer's 1-hour approvals.

A subsequent psychological treatment plan was denied based on a psychiatric assessment attributing current symptoms to non-accident-related factors.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, a physiotherapy treatment plan, a psychological services treatment plan, and a special award.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for the non-earner benefit, finding insufficient evidence to make a meaningful comparison of the applicant's pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal approved the physiotherapy treatment plan, finding the goals reasonable and supported by evidence of progress.

The claim for the psychological services treatment plan was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove the provider qualified for the higher hourly rate sought.

The request for a special award was also dismissed as there was no evidence of unreasonable conduct by the insurer.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his physical and psychological injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting that his self-reported symptoms were inconsistent and did not demonstrate functional impairment.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's s. 44 assessors over the applicant's pre-screening report.

The application for treatment plans, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were minor soft-tissue sprains and strains, and that his ongoing pain was related to pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

The Tribunal also found the respondent complied with notice requirements and did not unreasonably withhold benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of two physiotherapy treatment plans and a portion of a psychological treatment plan.

The respondent argued the applicant was barred from proceeding with one physiotherapy claim due to non-attendance at an insurer's examination, but the Tribunal found no prejudice as the applicant attended a subsequent examination.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the physiotherapy plans were not proven reasonable and necessary given the lack of objective medical evidence and an unopposed independent medical examination.

The Tribunal also upheld the respondent's reduced hourly rate for the psychological services provided by an unregulated social worker.

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

The central issue was whether her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological injuries, or a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Her evidence regarding chronic pain did not meet the AMA Guides criteria, her psychological symptoms were not formally diagnosed, and there was insufficient evidence that her pre-existing shoulder tear prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, no further benefits, interest, or awards were payable.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for $1,252.55, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain, which would remove her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove she sustained a chronic pain condition as a result of the accident, noting a lack of medical evidence linking her complaints to the accident and evidence of her returning to normal activities.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for $1,252.55, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The applicant claimed to suffer from chronic pain, which would remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a chronic pain condition, noting a lack of medical evidence linking his complaints to the accident and accepting the insurer's medical examination finding no chronic pain.

The application was dismissed.