Dr. Abdul Khan

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident where a vehicle crashed into her workplace lunchroom.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG, noting significant inconsistencies in her self-reporting, particularly her failure to disclose her participation in a physically demanding, full-time Personal Support Worker program shortly after the accident.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

However, the adjudicator awarded an Income Replacement Benefit for a closed period from the date the disability certificate was submitted until the date the applicant's family doctor cleared her to participate in the PSW program.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to a mental and behavioural disorder, along with attendant care, home modifications, and other medical benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not a credible witness and failed to establish that her impairments were caused by the accident, noting significant pre-existing physical and psychological conditions.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment and dismissed all claims for disputed benefits, finding them either not reasonable and necessary, duplicative, or unrelated to the accident.

The applicant, who has pre-existing cerebral palsy, sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including $6,000 per month for attendant care, $1,000,000 for home modifications, and multiple treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-report to be unreliable and preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, concluding that the accident caused only soft tissue injuries and an adjustment disorder, not the severe physical and cognitive decline claimed.

The Tribunal denied the claims for attendant care, home modifications, and most treatment plans, but approved psychological treatment and aquatherapy as reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest on the approved plans were granted, but the request for a special award was dismissed.