Dr. Preeya Chauhan

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits, removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, and payment for several treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a self-employed painter, relying on medical evidence showing mostly normal physical function and no significant psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft-tissue sprains and strains, keeping him within the Minor Injury Guideline.

Because the $3,500 limit had been exhausted, the claims for additional treatment plans and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents.

The adjudicator held that the applicant was precluded from claiming an income replacement benefit for the second accident because he had elected to receive a non-earner benefit, an election that is final under s. 35(3) of the Schedule.

For the first accident, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in employment to qualify for a post-104 income replacement benefit.

Furthermore, the adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries from both accidents fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, as he failed to demonstrate that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments prevented him from achieving maximum medical recovery within the guideline's limits.

All claims were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits for physiotherapy and assistive devices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a marble shop worker, which involved medium physical demand level work, and granted the IRBs.

However, the Tribunal denied the medical benefits for physiotherapy due to a lack of specificity in the treatment plan, and denied the assistive devices because there was no evidence linking the applicant's foot pathology to the accident.

Interest was awarded on the overdue IRBs.