Dr. Yeh

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation 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 Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and that there was insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits had been exhausted, the disputed treatment and assessment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

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

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

The applicant argued that chronic pain and psychological impairments, including Adjustment Disorder and Specific Phobia, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of functionally-disabling chronic pain or a diagnosable psychological impairment that would prevent maximal medical recovery within the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment and assessment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological injuries, including depression and anxiety, removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed chiropractic treatment plans and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, along with interest on overdue payments.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and seeking payment for a psychological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his psychological and physical injuries were not predominantly minor, as the psychological assessment relied upon was subjective and inconsistent with objective test results.

Consequently, the applicant's benefits remained capped at $3,500 under the MIG.

However, the Tribunal found the psychological assessment was a reasonable and necessary expense, ordering the insurer to pay for it, with interest, provided there were remaining funds within the applicant's MIG limit.