Jamie Min

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that her accident-related soft tissue injuries caused functional impairment or met the criteria for chronic pain syndrome under the AMA Guides.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claim for the chronic pain assessment, and denied claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought a medical benefit for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan on the basis that it was submitted during a period when the applicant was entitled to treatment under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the respondent was permitted to refuse the treatment plan under s. 38(5) of the Schedule and that this refusal was final and not subject to review under s. 38(6).

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to demonstrate that the chiropractic services were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed, and claims for a section 10 award and interest were also denied.

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

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was barred from proceeding under s. 55 of the Schedule for failing to attend insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant made himself reasonably available and was not barred.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the accident directly caused the applicant's physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal granted entitlement to the disputed physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, and an occupational therapy in-home assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The claim for psychological treatment was dismissed due to lack of evidence that the applicant utilized previously approved treatment.

The Tribunal declined to order an award under Regulation 664, finding the insurer's conduct did not rise to the requisite level of unreasonableness.

The defendant requested a case conference to compel the plaintiff to sign a medical authorization form prior to an independent medical examination with a psychiatrist.

The plaintiff's counsel failed to attend the case conference despite being notified.

The court held that the issue could be determined expeditiously at a case conference under Rule 50.13.

The court ordered the plaintiff to execute the authorization, noting that it simply sets out the plaintiff's obligation to provide an accurate medical history and list of injuries, which is standard and necessary for the examiner to produce a report under Rule 53.03.

The appellant law firm, UL Lawyers Professional Corporation, appealed a Superior Court decision denying their request for a solicitor's lien against settlement proceeds.

The firm had represented the respondent client in motor vehicle litigation before being discharged.

The application judge found two of the three criteria for a charging order met but concluded there was no evidence the client would not pay.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in relying on an ambiguous undertaking and that a subsequent $5,000,000 lawsuit filed by the client against the firm provided sufficient "some evidence" that the client would not pay.

The appeal was allowed, and the firm was granted a solicitor's lien for $73,195.75 plus costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claims 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 that pre-existing injuries and chronic pain took him outside the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his pre-existing condition prevented him from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG, and the medical evidence did not support a finding of chronic pain.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and refused to fund several treatment and assessment plans.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that rotator cuff tendinopathy, psychological injuries, and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the rotator cuff injury met the definition of a minor injury and that there was insufficient evidence of psychological injuries or chronic pain, preferring the insurer's examination reports over the applicant's orthopaedic assessment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, making the disputed treatment plans and interest not payable as they exceeded the $3,500 funding limit.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and a special award following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding the applicant lacked credibility due to numerous inconsistencies, misrepresentations, and evidence of symptom exaggeration.

The arbitrator placed little weight on the applicant's treating practitioners, preferring the evidence of the insurer's assessors who conducted more thorough document reviews and found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and that the proposed treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a treatment plan that included massage therapy.

The respondent partially approved the plan but denied funding for massage therapy.

The Tribunal found that massage therapy was not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant's family physician and the insurer's examination physician both recommended only active therapy such as physiotherapy and home exercises.

A late-filed chiropractic report recommending massage therapy was admitted but given less weight due to its timing.

The application for benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and funding for psychological and neurological assessments.

The insurer denied the claims.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her physical impairments were caused by the accident, noting significant pre-existing conditions and a lack of pre-accident medical records.

However, the Tribunal found her psychological impairments were accident-related, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's expert.

The Tribunal denied the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment tasks.

The claim for a psychological assessment was partially granted, while the neurological assessment was denied.

The insurer's request for costs was also dismissed.