Anghela Sivananthan

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2016 motor vehicle accident under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal reviewed multidisciplinary assessments from both parties.

For Criterion 6 (physical), the Tribunal found a 36% whole person impairment, preferring the respondent's assessors on headaches and neurocognitive issues but the applicant's assessor on extremity impairments.

For Criterion 7 (combined physical and mental), the Tribunal added a 10% mental impairment rating based on the respondent's psychiatrist, resulting in a 42% combined impairment, falling short of the 55% threshold.

For Criterion 8 (mental/behavioural domains), the Tribunal found moderate impairments across all domains, rejecting the applicant's claims of marked or extreme impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit (NEB), various treatment plans, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the NEB, as he failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting he returned to full-time work shortly after the accident.

Most treatment plans were denied for lack of objective evidence of impairment, relying on the respondent's insurer examinations.

However, a functional abilities evaluation was approved based on psychological reports indicating a need to investigate functional impairments.

The claim for an award was dismissed as the insurer adjusted the claim in good faith.

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 sufficient medical evidence of chronic pain, psychological injury, or a pre-existing condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, as the applicant did not provide evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for an occupational therapy assessment and treatment plan following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that medical evidence and the applicant's own self-reports indicated she was independent in her activities of daily living, had resumed driving, and was working.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal excluded several of the applicant's medical reports because they were submitted eight months past the document exchange deadline, prejudicing the respondent.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary insurer examination reports, which found no significant functional impairments.

The claim for the physiotherapy treatment plan was also dismissed as the applicant provided minimal argument or evidence to demonstrate it was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries from the first accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as she failed to provide compelling medical evidence that pre-existing conditions would prevent her recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for a non-earner benefit and several physiotherapy treatment plans, concluding that she did not meet the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life and failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit, treatment plans for physiotherapy and assistive devices, interest, and a special award.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit because he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting he returned to school and engaged in more activities post-accident than pre-accident.

However, the Tribunal approved the three treatment plans for physiotherapy and the balance of the plan for assistive devices, finding them reasonable and necessary to treat his ongoing left elbow impairment.

Interest was awarded on the approved plans.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's reliance on its medical assessors was not unreasonable.