Dr. Sukhinder Bhangu

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of various treatment and assessment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that psychiatric, psychological, orthopaedic, and functional abilities assessments were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal partially approved a physiotherapy treatment plan, noting that pain reduction is a legitimate goal, while excluding the cost of orthotic devices unrelated to the accident.

The applicant's request for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was denied, as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming costs for psychiatric, orthopaedic, functional abilities, and psychological assessments, as well as a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for the assessments, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate they were reasonable and necessary, noting she had already been diagnosed and was receiving treatments.

The Tribunal partially granted the physiotherapy treatment plan, approving it for pain reduction but excluding the cost of orthotic devices unrelated to the accident.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

Interest was awarded on the overdue physiotherapy benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services, psychological services, and assistive devices following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's symptoms were due to pre-existing conditions and that the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found the chiropractic treatment plans and assistive devices were reasonable and necessary based on the treating family physician's clinical notes, though it reduced the amounts awarded for the assistive devices to their retail cost and capped the second chiropractic plan.

The claim for psychological services was dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain caused by the accident, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for an orthopaedic assessment and a physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments, but the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was denied as the insurer's conduct was not excessively imprudent or stubborn.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, bursitis, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting his pain was improving, his bursitis was captured within the MIG definition, and his psychological symptoms did not constitute an impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that he suffered from a concussion, psychological impairments, and chronic back pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient compelling medical evidence to support these claims, preferring the insurer's expert assessments which concluded the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries with no significant psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit, with entitlement to the disputed treatment plans only if already incurred under the MIG.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and massage therapy treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal excluded the applicant's submissions beyond the 10-page limit set by a prior order.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that while the applicant's goal of pain reduction was reasonable, she failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating the specific treatment plans were necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examinations, which concluded the treatments were not reasonable and necessary due to a lack of objective impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and a treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant failed to submit a completed Disability Certificate (OCF-3) as required by s. 36(2) of the Schedule, which is fatal to the NEB claim.

Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The treatment plan was denied as the applicant did not provide sufficient objective medical evidence to prove it was reasonable and necessary, and the Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical examination concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.