Shelby Chung

The applicant sought reinstatement of an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $400 per week following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had suspended the IRB after 44 weeks based on insurer's examinations indicating the applicant no longer met the criteria.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's failure to comply with multiple production orders for employment and financial documentation, which severely undermined her case.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent denied on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that his physical injuries, including a partial shoulder tear, and psychological impairments, diagnosed as an adjustment disorder, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the physical injuries were predominantly minor and that the psychological diagnosis was not supported by the psychometric testing or DSM-5 criteria.

The application was dismissed, and no benefits or awards were granted.

The applicant, a 10-year-old passenger injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought a medical benefit of $1,840.00 for optometric services (vision therapy) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the visual issues were not caused by the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant's post-accident visual challenges were a result of the accident and could not be mitigated by prescription glasses alone.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the medical benefit and interest on the overdue payment.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $1,836.00 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, which was over four years old, insufficient to demonstrate an ongoing impairment.

Preferring the respondent's more recent insurer examination report, the Tribunal concluded the treatment plan was neither reasonable nor necessary and dismissed the application.