Apurva Shah

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

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine if the applicant was statute-barred for failing to notify the respondent of her intention to claim benefits within seven days of the accident.

The applicant argued she was unaware she could claim benefits and had attempted home remedies.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law is not a reasonable explanation and noted a lack of evidence for the home remedies.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, prejudicing the insurer.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that chronic pain warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 medical examination, which diagnosed myofascial strain injuries treatable within the MIG, over the applicant's expert reports, which were found to be unsupported by objective medical evidence and the applicant's functional abilities.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the burden of proving his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought a weekly non-earner benefit and interest on overdue payments.

The respondent denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she was still able to engage in most pre-accident activities, albeit in a more limited manner.

Medical reports indicated she had recovered by at least 50%.

The application was dismissed.