Dr. Mandeep Kaur Singh

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant demonstrated a chronic pain condition with functional impairment, satisfying the AMA Guides criteria, and removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services, psychological services, and various assessments, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the treating practitioners' records and s. 25 assessments.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the respondent reasonably relied on its expert reports.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit, as the evidence did not establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life compared to his pre-accident baseline, which already included functional limitations.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for attendant care benefits, finding the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred or that the requested quantum was reasonable and necessary given his demonstrated abilities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and gave limited weight to the applicant's psychological assessment due to reliability issues and lack of contemporaneous medical records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove removal from the MIG or a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a chef.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, and a chronic pain assessment, arguing the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the psychological treatment plans were excessive.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove that his pre-existing conditions or accident-related physical injuries precluded maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's expert evidence, which found no objective physical impairments and concluded the proposed psychological treatments and chronic pain assessment were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, having previously been found to suffer from chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether several treatment plans for physiotherapy, physical rehabilitation, psychological services, and assistive devices were reasonable and necessary under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that further facility-based treatment, including physiotherapy, physical rehabilitation, acupuncture, and a back support, were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's chronic pain and functionality.

The Tribunal also approved the treatment plan for psychological services, finding a causal link between the applicant's chronic pain and psychological symptoms.

Claims for an orthopaedic mattress, an elbow brace, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.