Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-009798/AABS
In the matter of an application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8, in relation to statutory accident benefits.
Between:
Blessing Anyanwu
Applicant
and
TD General Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR: Craig Mazerolle
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
No submissions
For the Respondent:
No submissions
HEARD: In Writing
OVERVIEW
1Blessing Anyanwu, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on June 22, 2018, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”). The applicant was denied benefits by the respondent, TD General Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
ISSUES
2The issues in dispute are:
i. Are the applicant’s injuries predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule and therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 Minor Injury Guideline limit?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,362.84 for a chronic pain assessment, proposed by A&B Medical Assessments in a treatment plan/OCF-18 dated November 11, 2020?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
ANALYSIS
3The applicant has the onus of demonstrating removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”). The applicant also has the onus of demonstrating entitlement to the medical benefit and interest in dispute.
4In the case conference report and order released on May 9, 2023, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for February 9, 2024. Notice of this written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on May 18, 2023.
5The applicant’s initial written submissions were due on January 10, 2024.
6Neither party has filed submissions, and there has been no motion made seeking to extend the applicant’s initial submissions deadline.
7As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not met the evidentiary burden. I further find that no Notice of Motion has been filed seeking to extend the applicant’s initial submissions deadline.
ORDER
8As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated removal from the MIG, nor has the applicant demonstrated entitlement to the medical benefit and interest in dispute.
9The application is dismissed.
Released: September 23, 2024
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair