Dr. Zhuhui Li

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 removal from the MIG was warranted due to pre-existing conditions, a psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal first dismissed the respondent's motion to exclude late-filed medical evidence, finding the prejudice to the applicant outweighed that to the respondent.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that pre-existing conditions prevented his recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not substantiate his claims of psychological impairment or chronic pain with objective medical evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal held the applicant's injuries were minor, subject to the MIG limits, and he was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

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

The respondent denied certain medical benefits, asserting the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries, including partial shoulder tears, pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary up to the remaining MIG limits.

The applicant's request for an award for bad faith conduct was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to four treatment plans for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment plans for driving instructor travel time, physiotherapy, and chiropractic services, noting a lack of compelling contemporaneous evidence and that driving instructor travel time is not an authorized transportation expense.

However, the Tribunal approved the treatment plan for psychological services, finding it reasonable and necessary based on the unrefuted opinion of the applicant's psychologist and corroborating neuropsychological assessments.

The applicant was also awarded interest on the approved psychological treatment plan.