Ms. Mandy Fang

The applicant sought a Non-Earner Benefit (NEB), interest, and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in his self-reports and a lack of evidence regarding his pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports over the applicant's psychological assessments, which failed to review medical records or delineate the impact of multiple accidents.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent denied a physiotherapy treatment plan and maintained the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological injury, corroborated by psychometric testing and clinical notes, warranting removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal denied the $4,309.56 physiotherapy treatment plan, finding the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous corroborating evidence that the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The applicant sought a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 and interest, alleging the respondent unreasonably delayed removing her from the Minor Injury Guideline and approving treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding the respondent's actions were not unreasonable because the applicant failed to provide requested pre-accident and updated clinical notes and records in a timely manner.

Without these records, the respondent could not properly assess whether the applicant's psychological impairments were caused by the accident or pre-existing marital issues.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical benefits for chiropractic treatment, and medication expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment for the pre-104 week period, and failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment for the post-104 week period.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, who noted symptom magnification and self-limited effort, over the applicant's experts who relied on incorrect employment information.

The claims for chiropractic treatment and medication were also dismissed for lack of supporting medical evidence.