Jae Cho

The applicant, who was 6 years old at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a Class 4 marked impairment in the domain of social functioning, relying on the applicant's psychiatric expert who linked the psychological diagnoses to the applicant's avoidance of interpersonal relationships and severe social withdrawal.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for an assessment plan and an OCF-6 invoice as the applicant provided no evidence or submissions to support them.

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) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological injury caused by the accident that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical and psychological assessments.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to treatment plans for psychological services and chronic pain assessments, arguing that psychological impairments and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a psychological condition or chronic pain with functional impairment that would preclude recovery within the MIG limits.

Relying on the respondent's psychiatric and physical assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and interest following a 2021 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had previously been deemed catastrophically impaired following a 2010 accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the subject accident.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting that the applicant retained sufficient mobility to perform most activities of daily living and that his need for assistance stemmed from his pre-existing injuries and advanced age.

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

The adjudicator found the applicant provided insufficient medical evidence of chronic pain or functional impairment, preferring the respondent's physiatry assessment which concluded the injuries were minor.

As the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG and the $3,500 funding limit was exhausted, the claim for a $1,475.35 chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plan was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a November 2018 motor vehicle accident where she was rear-ended in a parking lot.

The insurer denied a $2,200 treatment plan for a psychiatric and chronic pain assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence submitted by the applicant, including reports from various specialists, related to a prior, unrelated accident from February 2018 where she was struck as a cyclist or pedestrian.

Consequently, the applicant failed to meet her burden to prove her injuries from the subject accident warranted removal from the MIG or entitlement to the disputed treatment plan.

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 sought removal from the MIG based on a partial shoulder tear, pre-existing conditions, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological issues.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support removal from the MIG on any of these grounds.

The applicant's expert reports were given less weight due to non-compliance with procedural rules and lack of functional impairment evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant remains within the MIG and is not entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as the medical evidence did not establish a diagnosis of chronic pain with functional impairment under the AMA Guides criteria.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied because the MIG limits were exhausted.

However, the adjudicator determined that the applicant was entitled to income replacement benefits for the first 104 weeks post-accident, as a functional abilities evaluation demonstrated he could not meet the lifting requirements of his pre-accident employment as a delivery driver.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional limitations or a psychological impairment, noting a lack of supporting contemporaneous medical evidence and relying on the respondent's section 44 assessment.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the claim for a $2,500 orthopedic assessment and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence that further facility-based treatment was beneficial more than six years post-accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence or objective proof that the proposed treatment was reasonable and necessary.

The application for the treatment plan and interest was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving eligibility for an IRB under section 5(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant did not provide corroborating documentation to establish that he was receiving employment insurance at the time of the accident or that he had worked for at least 26 weeks in the 52 weeks prior to the accident.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was payable.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, noting the lack of contemporaneous medical records and the limited probative value of her assessor's report, which relied heavily on self-reporting.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, dismissing her claims for a chronic pain assessment, chiropractic services, and interest.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including orthopedic and psychological assessments, demonstrated only soft tissue injuries and no psychological impairment.

The applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she had returned to her pre-accident housekeeping activities.

Consequently, the claims for removal from the MIG, non-earner benefits, a disputed treatment plan, and interest were all dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit and medical benefits outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical evidence demonstrated she could independently perform most activities of daily living and had returned to part-time work.

Furthermore, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that a pre-existing lumbosacral spine pathology precluded her maximal recovery within the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were denied as the MIG funding limit was exhausted.

The applicant sought medical and non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she did not meet the test for non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, as medical evidence showed only soft tissue injuries and no chronic pain or pre-existing conditions precluding recovery.

Because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed physiotherapy treatment plan was denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

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

The respondent argued the matter had been settled for $250,000, which was paid to the applicant's former, now-deceased lawyer.

The applicant claimed she never signed the settlement documents or received the funds, alleging forgery.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that under section 9.1(8) of Regulation 664, an applicant cannot apply to the Tribunal regarding benefits subject to a purported settlement without first returning the money received as consideration.

The Tribunal noted it lacks equitable jurisdiction to waive this mandatory statutory requirement.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a non-earner benefit and funding for a psychiatric and chronic pain assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

Applying the Heath test, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to work, drive, and manage childcare and self-care independently.

The Tribunal also denied the proposed assessment, finding it was not reasonable or necessary given the lack of objective medical evidence supporting chronic pain syndrome or psychiatric impairment, and noting the applicant's own lack of interest in psychological treatment.

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

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

The Tribunal found that while the initial physical injuries were minor, the applicant subsequently developed accident-related psychological disorders and chronic pain that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered payment for a psychiatry/GP medical assessment but denied a claim for chiropractic services as there was no outstanding balance.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and medical benefits for physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her onus to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she provided no pre-accident documentation to compare with her post-accident abilities.

The Tribunal also determined that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains, subject to the Minor Injury Guideline limit, and dismissed the claims for treatment plans as they were not submitted for the hearing.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiff agreed that the partial indemnity costs sought by two defendants were reasonable, but objected to the third defendant's request for full indemnity costs.

The court found no reason to award full indemnity costs as the plaintiff had done nothing improper, and awarded partial indemnity costs to all three defendants.