Dr. C. Sandhu

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought payment for three physiotherapy treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on section 44 assessments indicating no further physical rehabilitation was necessary.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence unpersuasive, as the reports were either based on phone consultations, lacked physical examinations, or contradicted hospital records.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's assessments and dismissed the application, finding the treatment plans were not reasonable or necessary.

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

The respondent denied various treatment and assessment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to establish that pre-existing conditions or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident where he was allegedly struck as a pedestrian.

The insurer determined his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied further treatment plans and Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, rejecting his claims of chronic pain and psychological injuries due to inconsistent medical evidence and uncompelling expert reports.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding no credible link between the accident and the applicant's inability to work, as the medical evidence showed functional range of motion and no substantial impairment.

All claims were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits.

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing back pain and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the pre-existing condition would preclude recovery within the MIG, noting the injuries were predominantly soft-tissue strains.

As the applicant had already exhausted the $3,500 MIG funding limit, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a psychological assessment and chiropractic treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans following insurer's examinations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment and assessment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of compelling contemporaneous medical evidence and preferring the respondent's expert reports which indicated minimal psychological and physical impairment.

The application was dismissed and no interest was payable.