Dr. Sabrina Ming-Wai Tu

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs) and funding for four treatment plans for chiropractic services.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the test for post-104 IRBs, as her physical and psychological impairments resulted in a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal also approved the four treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary for pain relief, and awarded interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and various treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to an IRB because his post-accident short-term disability income fully negated the benefit quantum under s. 7(3)(a) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG, rejecting claims of psychological impairment and chronic pain due to evidence of malingering, lack of contemporaneous clinical reporting, and treating physician records indicating full functional capacity.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

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 injury, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical evidence that the injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and that there was no accident-related psychological injury.

The application for benefits and interest 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 for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence of functional impairment arising from chronic pain or psychological injuries, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations over the applicant's medical reports.

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

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain assessment, chronic pain treatment, and transportation expenses.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the chronic pain assessment and treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessor over the insurer's assessor, who failed to review the applicant's clinical notes and records.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the assessment and treatment plans, plus interest.

The claim for transportation expenses was dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit based on an insurer's examination and requested further examinations due to inconsistencies between the applicant's disability period and his injuries, given his pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found the respondent's notices of examination and denial were valid and compliant with the Schedule.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to provide evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

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 applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for non-earner benefits, various physiotherapy treatment plans, and assessments for psychology and chronic pain.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, noting the lack of clinical records and the failure of his assessors to address the respondent's medical reports.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, applying the Heath test and finding the applicant had resumed substantially all of his pre-accident activities, including completing his education.

All disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought payment for psychological and orthopaedic assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective evidence to demonstrate that the assessments were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming attendant care benefits of $29.38 per month and $1,394.50 for assistive devices and an education session.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the claimed benefits were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's assessment reports, which indicated the applicant remained independent in his activities of daily living and personal hygiene, over the applicant's reports, which failed to establish a nexus between his impairments and the need for an aide or assistive devices.

Furthermore, the applicant provided no evidence that the attendant care expenses had been incurred.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and were subject to the $3,500 limit.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and a pre-existing elbow injury.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the applicant's pain significantly disrupted her daily activities, that her psychological complaints were more than mere sequelae, or that her pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the application for an orthopaedic assessment and interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit, various medical and rehabilitation assessments, a special award, and interest.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidence showed she could perform the majority of her pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits, finding the applicant did not provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the treatment and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including psychological, chiropractic, physiotherapy services, and a neurological assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery for his soft tissue injuries and that the proposed psychological services could be provided at a lower hourly rate by a subordinate practitioner.

The Tribunal also found the neurological assessment was not reasonable and necessary as the applicant's headaches were not directly caused by the accident.