Dr. Bansal

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the termination of her income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's experts, noting that the applicant's expert reports were either uncorroborated by contemporaneous medical records or based on limited reviews.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to ongoing IRBs, as she did not demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a machine operator, particularly given her subsequent employment at a fast-food restaurant involving similar physical demands.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, relying on an insurer examination which concluded the applicant's shoulder instability was not accident-related.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to submit evidence or arguments demonstrating the treatment was reasonable and necessary, and lacked jurisdiction to award a requested lump sum for future medical benefits.

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 applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing low back condition, psychological impairments, chronic pain, and a concussion.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments over the applicant's evidence, which lacked corroboration from the family doctor's clinical notes.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant alleged the adjudicator committed a material breach of procedural fairness by limiting oral submissions and excluding an Aide Memoire, and made errors of law and fact in assessing her activities of daily living, communication abilities, and expert evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the parties were granted ample time for submissions.

The Tribunal also held that the alleged factual errors would not have changed the outcome and that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-litigate the weighing of evidence.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological injuries and chronic pain warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish a psychological injury or chronic pain with functional impairment, preferring the respondent's assessments.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's arguments that the respondent's denial notices contravened section 38 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), chronic pain treatment, and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found the claim for the psychological assessment was statute-barred as the applicant failed to dispute the denial within the two-year limitation period.

The claims for pre-104 and post-104 IRBs were dismissed because the applicant returned to his pre-accident employment for eight months post-accident, and the medical evidence did not support his claim of an accident-related fused disc or inability to work.

The claim for chronic pain treatment was also dismissed as not reasonable or necessary based on the respondent's medical assessments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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 applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition of mild scoliosis and chronic pain with a functional impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing condition precluded recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, applying the AMA Guidelines, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain with a functional impairment, as she remained independent in her activities of daily living and continued to work.

As the applicant remained within the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans were not assessed for reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to psychological and chronic pain assessments outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain with a functional impairment or an accident-related psychological condition, noting compelling evidence of malingering from the respondent's psychological expert.

The application was dismissed, and claims for the assessments, a special award, and interest were denied.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and a treatment plan for psychological and neuropsychological assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's limitations were due to pre-existing conditions, including multiple sclerosis, and that he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities or objective medical evidence to refute the respondent's insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefits, the treatment plan, interest, or an award for unreasonable delay.

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

The insurer 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 strictly musculoskeletal and that he did not suffer a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's independent examiners over the applicant's occupational therapist and psychotherapist.

The applicant also failed to prove entitlement to a non-earner benefit, as he provided no evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a physiotherapy treatment plan outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The application for IRBs, the treatment plan, an award, and interest was dismissed.