Sandeep Johal

The applicant sought payment for three assessments related to a catastrophic impairment determination following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the situational and community occupational therapy assessments were reasonable and necessary to determine the functional impact of the applicant's psychological condition, and that the $2,000 fee for each was reasonable under the Schedule.

The triage assessment was denied for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under Regulation 664, finding that the insurer had not acted unreasonably in relying on file reviews and providing medical reasons for its denials.

The applicant's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $2,920.62 for physical therapy.

The respondent denied the treatment plan.

At the hearing, the applicant relied on the evidence of his occupational therapist, who testified about his anxiety and need for community reintegration.

The respondent relied on an orthopaedic surgeon who found the applicant's physical injuries had healed and required no further facility-based treatment.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the treatment plan was specifically for physical therapy, and the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary given the lack of supporting physical evidence.

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

After the applicant failed to attend a rescheduled case conference because he had to travel overseas to attend to his ill mother, the respondent requested costs under Rule 19.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant's non-attendance under the circumstances did not constitute unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith behaviour.

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

Prior to a scheduled case conference, the applicant withdrew the appeal application.

The respondent subsequently brought a motion for costs, alleging the applicant acted frivolously, vexatiously, and in bad faith by misrepresenting his employment status.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent's evidence, which relied entirely on hearsay from an unidentified confidential source, was unreliable and insufficient to establish bad faith or unreasonable conduct under Rule 19.1.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominately minor injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition or psychological impairment that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The application for benefits was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was also denied.