Dr. Bhangu

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident involving a school bus.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), she was entitled to be removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder.

The applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as she failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, with evidence showing no significant difference in her pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal approved a treatment plan for psychological services but denied other plans for chiropractic and orthopaedic assessments due to a lack of supporting evidence.

A claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was also dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefit, arguing the applicant's post-accident condition was not significantly different from his pre-accident state due to extensive pre-existing injuries.

The Tribunal applied the Heath test and found that the accident exacerbated the applicant's chronic pain and mobility issues, resulting in a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal gave limited weight to the insurer's s. 44 assessors because they failed to review the applicant's medical records.

The applicant was awarded the NEB with interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that her physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors over the applicant's treating practitioners and psychological report.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The claim for IRBs was also dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

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

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding due to non-attendance at insurer examinations; the Tribunal found the notice of examination was deficient and allowed the claim to proceed.

On the merits, the Tribunal held that the applicant's psychological impairments removed him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal approved the psychological assessment and treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, but denied the claims for attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, and chiropractic treatment.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied claims for physiotherapy and an attendant care/in-home assessment on the basis that the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's significant physical injuries were related to pre-existing conditions and subsequent surgeries, not the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, and dismissed the application.

Claims for an award and costs were also dismissed.