Dr. P. Kanagaratnam

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of several treatment plans (OCF-18s) for chiropractic and psychological treatment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

Medical evidence, including records from the applicant's family physician and an insurer's examination, indicated the physical injuries had resolved.

For the psychological treatment, the adjudicator found the requested re-assessments and administrative costs were not justified by the evidence or the FSCO Professional Services Guideline.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and a special award were denied.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits, cost of examinations, interest, and an award following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, specifically a Class 4 Marked impairment in the domain of Activities of Daily Living due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits at $507.03 per month for feeding, along with the costs of an occupational therapy situational assessment and an in-home attendant care assessment.

Claims for a triage assessment, an award under Regulation 664, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the denials.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred under section 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the denials were clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period.

Applying the Manuel factors under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, the Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period due to the length of the delay, lack of bona fide intention to appeal within the period, and prejudice to the respondent.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.