Bhagwant Chohan

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

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

The applicant argued that a pre-existing back condition warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence that the pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial notices complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and later moved to bar the application under s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule for failure to attend insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the application was not barred because the insurer's notice lacked adequate reasons.

On the merits, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's psychological issues, including severe depression, pre-dated the accident and that the accident itself was a suicide attempt.

Consequently, the applicant failed to prove he sustained a psychological impairment caused by the accident or that a pre-existing condition prevented his recovery under the MIG.

The application for psychological benefits, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident and disputed the insurer's denial of two treatment plans for chiropractic services.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the application was statute-barred because it was filed beyond the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial notices were defective as they relied on boilerplate language and failed to provide clear medical reasons for the denials, contrary to the requirements in Smith v. Co-operators.

Consequently, the defective notices did not trigger the limitation period, and the applicant was permitted to proceed with the application.