Jae H. Cho

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.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical impairments were sprain and strain-type injuries falling within the MIG, and she failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's medical evidence did not sufficiently support the need for the specific chiropractic services requested, especially given clinical notes indicating the applicant was golfing regularly and had a normal shoulder.

The application was dismissed.