Dr. Neilank Jha

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome and a mild traumatic brain injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's expert medical evidence was not corroborated by the clinical notes and records of her family physician.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet her burden to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, and dismissed the application.

The minor applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for optical, speech and language, and psychological assessments.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed assessments were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The adjudicator accepted the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant's impairments were related to pre-existing diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained an accident-related concussion, removing him from the Minor Injury Guideline.

However, the claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish the essential tasks of his employment or a substantial inability to perform them.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for a concussion assessment and a neurological assessment, but denied plans for a driving evaluation, a psychological assessment, and a second concussion assessment.

The claim for a bad faith award was dismissed.

The applicant, a minor, sought accident benefits following a 2022 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans and requested an insurer's examination (IE) with a pediatric neurologist after receiving a report linking the applicant's symptoms to the accident.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled IE, citing travel to India, and did not provide a reasonable explanation or cooperate in rescheduling.

The Tribunal found the IE request was reasonably necessary and timely.

Consequently, the applicant was barred from proceeding with the application under section 55(1)2 of the Schedule, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first held that the applicant was statute-barred from disputing the denial of 14 treatment plans because he failed to apply within the two-year limitation period and did not establish grounds for an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 (falling short of the 55% whole person impairment threshold) or Criterion 8 (failing to establish marked impairments in three spheres of functioning).

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the remaining treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary onus to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline due to a concussion diagnosis supported by medical evidence.

The applicant was awarded several treatment plans, including chiropractic services, psychological assessments, and a post-concussion syndrome workshop, as they were deemed reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found the applicant entitled to pre-104 week income replacement benefits, as he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a heavy machine operator.

However, claims for post-104 week income replacement benefits, an award for unreasonable delay, and costs were dismissed.