Dr. Madhu Bhardwaj

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing for removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a psychological condition and physical injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were minor sprains and strains.

The Tribunal also placed less weight on the applicant's psychological assessment due to inconsistencies between test scores and the severity of the diagnosis, concluding the applicant did not sustain a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The applicant was found entitled to treatment up to the MIG limits, but claims for interest and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a chronic pain assessment, chiropractic treatment, and psychological services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the chronic pain assessment was incurred before the treatment plan was submitted, barring the claim.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to prove the chiropractic and psychological treatments were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's independent medical examination evidence.

The respondent's request for costs due to the applicant's failure to produce extended health care documents was denied, as no pecuniary prejudice was demonstrated.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied funding for physical therapies and assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome and adjustment disorder, supported by expert assessments, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the expert assessments should be given less weight merely because the applicant had not complained of these issues to his treating practitioners.

The applicant was awarded all disputed treatment plans and interest.

The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy, an orthopedic assessment, and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries, including headaches, chronic pain, and psychological issues, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence that pre-existing conditions prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including medical benefits and an income replacement benefit.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he did not meet the test for an income replacement benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit, which had been exhausted.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and was therefore not entitled to an income replacement benefit.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought the balance of a cost of examination for a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had paid a portion of the claimed amount based on its own assessor's opinion of reasonable hours.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the treatment plan vague and unparticularized, and noting the applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence justifying the full amount of time claimed.