Raj Sharda

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found her psychological impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator determined that an error of law was made in the previous decision, as the applicant's psychological impairment was rooted in previously documented anxiety and was not a clinically associated sequelae of her minor injuries from the accident.

The reconsideration was granted, and the previous decision was varied to remove the applicant from the MIG.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and the cost of a psychological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he was able to perform substantially all of his pre-accident activities with only minor restrictions.

The claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal awarded $1,450.00 for a short course of psychotherapy to address the applicant's residual psychological symptoms, including intrusive memories and anxiety related to cycling.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically a treatment plan for physiotherapy.

The respondent denied the plan based on an insurer's examination report.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary to support the applicant's maximal recovery from cervical spine and shoulder impairments.

The Tribunal approved the treatment plan but denied the applicant's claims for interest and a special award, finding the respondent's reliance on its medical expert was appropriate.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain program and assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) cap and that the chronic pain was not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from pre-existing chronic pain that was exacerbated by the accident, preventing maximal medical recovery within the MIG limits.

Relying on medical evidence, including reports from the respondent's own independent examiners, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were not predominantly minor.

The applicant was removed from the MIG and awarded the disputed treatment plans and assessment, along with interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to non-earner benefits and medical benefits for physiotherapy and acupuncture.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from pre-existing psychological impairments and chronic pain that were worsened by the accident, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts and her own sworn affidavit over the insurer's assessor, who had not been provided with the applicant's complete medical history.

The Tribunal awarded the non-earner benefits and the physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, but denied the acupuncture claim because it was not properly submitted via an OCF-18.

The applicant sought medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that psychological injuries should remove her from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence diagnosing an adjustment disorder and depressed mood, but found the impairment was on the less severe spectrum and did not cause a loss of functional abilities.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and she should remain subject to the MIG limit.

Claims for psychological services and assessments were denied, while chiropractic services were approved up to the $3,500 limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, arguing the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's diagnosed psychological impairment removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal further held that the disputed chiropractic and psychological treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to assist with pain management and psychological recovery.

The applicant's claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was denied, as the respondent had relied reasonably on its insurer examination reports.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for neck and lower back impairments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the impairments arose from a post-accident drug overdose and assault.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ongoing chronic pain was causally linked to the accident, noting pre-existing spinal disease and a spinal displacement identified immediately post-accident.

The Tribunal approved the chronic pain assessment and program as reasonable and necessary, along with applicable interest, but denied the requested physiotherapy and physiatry assessment as duplicative.