Dr. Duong Nguyen

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from accident-related chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the evidence of the insurer's assessors.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit, finding insufficient evidence of the applicant's pre-accident self-employment as a social worker or inability to perform his duties as an Uber driver.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that 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 and orthopedic impairments, specifically degenerative disc disease and foraminal stenosis.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for chronic pain under the AMA Guides, noting his reports of minimal pain to his family doctors and lack of functional impairment.

The Tribunal also found no medical evidence linking the degenerative changes on his MRI to the accident.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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 the applicant's injuries, specifically fragmentation of the lateral distal tibia, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal granted the claim for an orthopaedic assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary based on objective evidence of physical complaints and a pre-existing knee injury.

However, claims for physiotherapy were dismissed due to a lack of evidentiary submissions, and a psychological assessment was denied after the applicant's psychological report was excluded for late production.

Interest was awarded on the approved orthopaedic assessment.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim based on the expiry of the limitation period.

On the eve of the motion, the defendant abandoned it, and the parties attended a hearing solely to determine costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the motion was unreasonable from the outset because the permanency of her injuries was not discoverable until a later medical report was obtained.

The court found no reason to depart from the presumption under Rule 37.09(3) that the responding party is entitled to costs of an abandoned motion.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no bad faith or egregious conduct by the defendant.

Costs were fixed at $12,500 on a partial indemnity basis.