Dr. Tam

The applicant sought a determination that his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the MIG issue on a stand-alone basis without an underlying dispute over a specific medical benefit.

On the substantive claim, the Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he continued to work as an independent contractor and maintained most of his pre-accident daily activities.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial letters were compliant with the Schedule and dismissed the claims for an award and interest.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits for physical and psychological injuries.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate her physical injuries or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's section 44 physiatry and psychological assessments, concluding the disputed treatment plans and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.