Dr. Sabrina Ming-Wai Tu

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 for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing chronic back condition and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing back condition would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG.

Furthermore, the psychological evidence was insufficient to establish an impairment warranting removal.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, the disputed 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) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his injuries fell outside the MIG, as there was insufficient evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment, psychological injury, or exacerbation of pre-existing conditions.

Because the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

Claims for an award and interest 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 applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove that his pre-existing low back pain prevented maximum recovery within the MIG, or that he suffered from accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment.

The application 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).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing right knee and psychological conditions, as well as accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG or that she suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, noting a lack of corroborating clinical notes from her family doctor.

The application 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).

The applicant claimed his injuries, including cervical radiculopathy and chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his physical impairments or chronic pain were accident-related or caused functional limitations sufficient to remove him from the MIG.

The application for additional treatment plans was dismissed.

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 that pre-existing degenerative disc disease and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a pre-existing condition, she failed to provide compelling medical evidence that it precluded her recovery within the MIG limits, relying instead on the respondent's insurer's examination reports which found only uncomplicated soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for an income replacement benefit, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to an accident-related psychological impairment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's section 44 assessors.

The applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as she failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life under the Heath test.

Several treatment plans were found payable either because they were reasonable and necessary or because the insurer failed to provide adequate medical reasons for denial as required by section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and his return to full-time work.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which flagged symptom exaggeration, over the applicant's expert report.

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

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB), an award for unreasonable delay, interest, and costs following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the NEB, arguing the applicant's impairments were pre-existing and temporary.

The Tribunal found that the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing physical and psychological conditions, resulting in a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant was awarded the NEB and interest.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for a special award and costs, finding the respondent did not act unreasonably, frivolously, or in bad faith.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit, relying on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the test for an IRB, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating physicians and the respondent's own kinesiologist, who found the applicant demonstrated functional limitations below the physical demands of his pre-accident job as a café supervisor.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's other experts, noting inconsistencies in their reasoning.

The applicant was awarded the IRB with interest, but his claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to support a chronic pain diagnosis under the AMA Guides or a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's expert reports, noting they relied heavily on self-reporting and lacked psychometric testing or corroborating medical records.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including a chronic pain assessment, to be internally inconsistent and of limited persuasive value.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit, rendering the disputed treatment plans moot.

However, the Tribunal granted a 5% award against the respondent for unreasonably delaying payment of a previously approved and invoiced treatment plan.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal first allowed the applicant's late-filed submissions, finding significant prejudice if excluded.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant had established a psychological impairment (adjustment disorder and driving phobia) that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for a psychological assessment, psychological services, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's ongoing complaints and supporting medical reports.

A treatment plan for physiotherapy was denied as it was inconsistent with the family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue benefits but declined to order a special award or costs, finding no unreasonable conduct by either party.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including hospital records, family doctor notes, and an insurer's examination report, indicated the applicant sustained uncomplicated soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's impairments were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

As the MIG limit applied, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

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 he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence, including expert reports, was inconsistent with his family doctor's clinical notes and his return to work as an Uber driver.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 assessments, concluding the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of chronic pain and psychological impairment unpersuasive, as it was unsupported by contemporaneous medical records and contradicted by the insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, and dismissed the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, relying on an insurer's psychological examination which concluded her emotional distress was subclinical.

As the applicant was not removed from the MIG and the limits were exhausted, her claim for a psychological assessment was denied.

Claims for an award and the respondent's request for costs were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were mechanical and myofascial in nature, and his psychological symptoms were minimal and below average.

The Tribunal also found no compelling medical evidence that the applicant's pre-existing seizure disorder precluded recovery within the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

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 chronic pain and psychological impairments, and also claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit (NEB) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide a thorough comparison of pre- and post-accident activities to satisfy the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans and NEB were denied.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for a multi-disciplinary chronic pain program and psychological services following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to comply with a production order for clinical notes and records.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying instead on the respondent's insurer examinations which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and did not suffer from a psychological impairment.