Aylina Dhanji

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, dismissing the claim for non-earner benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being pulled from his vehicle and assaulted by a group of assailants who then stole his car.

The respondent insurer denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for an accident and found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, and the use or operation of the vehicle was not the direct cause of the applicant's injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on October 21, 2021.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal on October 26, 2023, five days after the two-year limitation period expired.

The applicant requested an extension of time under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide submissions on his intention to appeal within the limitation period or the merits of his appeal, and therefore did not meet his burden to establish that the justice of the case warranted an extension.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including two treatment plans for chiropractic services and the outstanding balance for a catastrophic assessment.

The Tribunal found the chiropractic treatment plans reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's ongoing back pain, despite the presence of a non-cancerous tumour.

The Tribunal denied the outstanding balance for the catastrophic assessment, finding that individual file review costs are subsumed within the $2,000 funding limit.

The applicant's request for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the approved treatment plans.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from psychological impairments, including PTSD and major depressive disorder, which warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed psychological services and assessment, along with interest.

The applicant's claim for a special award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.