Dr. Ming-Wai Tu

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to physical injuries (lumbar sprain/strain) and psychological impairments (driving/passenger anxiety).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries that did not warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's psychological assessment that the applicant's initial driving anxiety had dissipated over time.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the claims for further treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

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 he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain with a functional impairment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain with a functional impairment, noting that insurer examinations identified no functional impairments and the applicant continued to work two jobs.

As the applicant remained within the MIG limit, he was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for massage, chiropractic, and physiotherapy treatment plans, as well as a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The claim for an attendant care assessment was dismissed, as was the claim for an award under Regulation 664, because the respondent had not acted unreasonably given the late production of medical evidence.