Dharshika Pathmanathan

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer 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, psychological impairment, or a pre-existing condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was already exhausted, all disputed treatment plans and the claim for interest were denied.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline limit, as he failed to establish that his left shoulder injury was caused by the accident or that a pre-existing back injury prevented maximal recovery.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for two disputed physiotherapy treatment plans because the respondent failed to provide compliant denial notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing psychological condition and accident-related driving anxiety.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that a pre-existing condition prevented her from achieving maximal medical recovery within the MIG limit.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and not a barrier to recovery.

The application for additional medical benefits and interest was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay and failure to restore it to the trial list.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list.

The court found that while the plaintiff's explanation for the delay was less than stellar, it was acceptable and not contumelious.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The plaintiff's motion to restore the action was granted, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was dismissed, though a timetable for outstanding undertakings was ordered.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the defendant due to the plaintiff's delay and short service.

The plaintiff moved to amend her statement of claim to reduce damages to $200,000, aiming to transfer the action to Rule 76 (simplified procedure) and strike the defendants' jury notice.

The defendants consented to the amendment but opposed the transfer and striking of the jury notice, arguing their right to a civil jury trial was a substantive right protected by transitional provisions in the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury notice and transfer the action to Rule 76, holding that the legislative amendments did not retrospectively eliminate the right to a jury trial for notices delivered before January 1, 2020.

The respondent insurer sought reconsideration of a decision finding that the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing condition.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to identify the specific accident-related minor injury and by failing to analyze how the pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision adequately identified the exacerbation of a subluxated coccyx as the accident-related injury and sufficiently analyzed the evidence regarding its impact on recovery.

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

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied several treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained psychological injuries, including an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, which removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered payment for a psychological assessment plan and a chiropractic treatment plan that the insurer had failed to deny within the required timelines.

A second chiropractic treatment plan was found not reasonable and necessary.

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

The central issue was whether the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's pre-existing coccygeal injury would prevent maximal recovery if limited to the MIG, thereby removing her from its limits.

The adjudicator approved three of the four proposed physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's consistent attendance and reported improvement.

However, the claim for a psychological assessment was denied because the applicant failed to establish that her psychological impairments were caused by the accident rather than pre-existing personal and social history.

Interest was awarded on the approved treatment plans.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that he failed to establish a psychological impairment that would remove him from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had already been exhausted, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was not entitled to the claimed treatment plans.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for two chiropractic treatment plans following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the plans.

At the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence, including clinical notes and records, did not support an ongoing physical impairment requiring the proposed treatment.

The adjudicator accepted the insurer's orthopaedic assessment that the applicant's soft tissue injuries had resolved.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the monetary limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that two of the applicant's claims for treatment plans were statute-barred under s. 56 of the Schedule because the appeal was filed after the two-year limitation period expired.

Another claim was barred because the applicant failed to attend a required s. 44 physiatry assessment without a reasonable explanation.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and ongoing complaints.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a treatment plan for chiropractic services in the amount of $4,767.98.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the injuries were related to the appellant's construction work and not the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet his onus to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting his return to work, pre-existing back pain, and reports of improvement from home exercises.

The appeal was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic services.

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

The applicant argued that her injuries, including a pre-existing condition and psychological issues, warranted treatment beyond the MIG cap.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition or psychological injury that would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and psychological assessments.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that his pre-existing left ankle injury, lumbar spine degeneration, or alleged psychological issues prevented him from achieving maximal recovery under the MIG cap.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the injuries were predominantly minor, the MIG limits were exhausted, and the proposed treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically a medical benefit of $4,652.42 for physiotherapy.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and were subject to the $3,500 limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor strains and sprains.

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would remove the applicant from the MIG.

Consequently, the claim for the physiotherapy treatment plan was dismissed, and no interest was payable.