Dr. Seung-Jun Lee

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing spinal osteoarthritis and accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the mild osteoarthritis was a pre-existing condition or that it precluded recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the psychological complaints were self-reported and unsupported by a psychological assessment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, relying on multidisciplinary insurer's examinations to conclude the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including post-104 income replacement benefits (IRB), medical benefits, and a special award.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the test for post-104 IRB, as she failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's reporting and her failure to complete several assessments.

The claims for medical benefits, assessments, and a special award were also 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 Tribunal found that the applicant was barred from disputing one treatment plan because he missed the two-year limitation period and the respondent's denial notice was valid.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal held that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor, keeping him within the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant returned to work and failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his onus to demonstrate injuries warranting removal from the MIG, noting a lack of supporting medical evidence from his family physician or treatment plans.

Relying in part on an insurer's examination report, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

As the applicant was held to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were dismissed without further analysis.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and funding for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and psychological treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on insurer's examinations which concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment and that the proposed treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to meet his burden of proof for the IRB and the treatment plans.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay, as no benefits were found to be overdue or unreasonably withheld.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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 argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological injury and chronic pain.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, noting the respondent's assessor was a psychologist rather than a psychological associate, and the applicant's assessment was from the same clinic proposing the treatment.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a psychological assessment and physiotherapy services outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate psychological or physical impairments warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations which were consistent with the family physician's clinical notes.

As the injuries were deemed minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the proposed treatment plans and claim for 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.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not establish on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, noting he did not meet three of the six criteria in the AMA Guides and had returned to work and normal household chores.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the chiropractic plans were reasonable and necessary, as there was no medical evidence showing progress from prior treatments, supporting the respondent's expert opinion that maximal medical recovery had been achieved.

The Tribunal also denied the higher hourly rate for psychological services because the work was performed by a social worker, not a psychologist.

However, the Tribunal approved $360 for a psychological progress report, finding it necessary to justify further treatments.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reported limitations inconsistent with his post-accident ability to attend school and work.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's treating practitioners, who were not qualified as experts and relied on assumptions or invalid test profiles.

Accepting the respondent's expert evidence, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to meet his burden to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG.

All claims for attendant care, treatment plans, and an award were dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that chronic pain and functional impairment warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of chronic pain or functional impairment.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted, the claim for the chiropractic treatment plan and interest was 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) and that she did not meet the test for income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a concussion or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plan for physiotherapy was denied.

The Tribunal also found insufficient medical evidence to establish that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, dismissing her claim for IRBs and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and funding for chiropractic and psychological treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary medical assessments over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant failed to establish a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that the injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting a lack of functional impairment and pre-existing conditions.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were not considered, and the application was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that had approved a $2,460 orthopaedic assessment treatment plan.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the initial adjudicator committed a material breach of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for why the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, focusing instead on the Minor Injury Guideline.

Upon rehearing the matter, the Vice-Chair dismissed the application for the treatment plan.

The Vice-Chair concluded that the applicant failed to establish that an orthopaedic assessment conducted entirely over the telephone, without any visual or video component, was reasonable and necessary to identify impairments or increase range of motion.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide submissions or evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, relying on section 44 assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she was able to engage in lighter tasks and various activities of daily living.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied a $2,460 treatment plan for an orthopedic assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant had developed chronic pain syndrome, satisfying four of the six criteria under the AMA Guides, which warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed orthopedic assessment was reasonable and necessary, ordering the respondent to pay the treatment plan amount plus interest.

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

The applicant claimed entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), chiropractic services, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to establish that his pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a plumber's apprentice.

The application was dismissed, and no further benefits or interest were awarded.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries were minor and he had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's independent medical examination reports which concluded the soft tissue injuries had healed.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied various treatment plans for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting a lack of corroborating medical evidence and inconsistencies in the chronic pain diagnosis.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, interest, or an award.