Dr. Rahul Pathak

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her accident-related injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by failing to properly consider the medical evidence of her neurologist and chiropractor regarding her chronic pain.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the original Tribunal properly weighed the evidence, provided adequate reasons for rejecting the uncontradicted medical reports, and made no errors of law or fact in its application of the MIG.

The applicant was struck by a transit bus while crossing an intersection and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold, preferring the respondent's medical experts who concluded her psychological challenges stemmed from pre-existing learning difficulties rather than the accident, and that she did not suffer from post-concussion syndrome.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,400 for a chronic pain assessment plan, finding the assessment was reasonable at the time it was proposed, and awarded interest because the respondent failed to provide proper medical reasons for its denial.