Harish Sharma

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological evidence was unpersuasive as it contradicted the clinical notes of his family doctor, and that his physical injuries were soft tissue in nature, resolving within expected timeframes.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and remained within the MIG.

All claims for benefits, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit, as the evidence did not establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life compared to his pre-accident baseline, which already included functional limitations.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for attendant care benefits, finding the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred or that the requested quantum was reasonable and necessary given his demonstrated abilities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including increased attendant care benefits, multiple treatment plans, and expenses for eyeglasses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide evidence of incurred past attendant care expenses and preferred the respondent's occupational therapy assessment for ongoing care, concluding that 24/7 care was not justified.

The claims for treatment plans and assessments were dismissed due to a complete lack of supporting evidence, and the claims for eyeglasses were denied because the expenses had not been incurred.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, assistive devices, chiropractic services, and multiple assessments.

The Tribunal denied the claim for attendant care benefits, finding that the applicant's significant functional limitations were attributable to an intervening stroke rather than the accident.

The Tribunal partially approved the claim for assistive devices and fully approved the claims for chiropractic services, finding them reasonable and necessary for the applicant's accident-related neck and back injuries.

The claims for neurological, orthopaedic, attendant care, and SIE/FAE assessments were denied for lack of supporting medical evidence.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments for incurred assistive devices and chiropractic services.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits (ACBs), and various medical and rehabilitation treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Applicant was not entitled to IRBs because he failed to provide the insurer with requested information, and was not entitled to ACBs because they were neither reasonable and necessary nor incurred.

However, the Tribunal approved the treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, preferring the evidence of the Applicant's treating practitioners over the insurer's paper-review assessors.

Claims for occupational therapy and a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits, medical benefits for PRP therapy, and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical impairments, specifically severe osteoarthritis in his hips, and his psychological impairments were not caused by the accident but were pre-existing or related to his termination from employment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer examination assessors over the applicant's experts, noting the applicant's lack of credibility and his experts' failure to review pre-accident medical records.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), a Non-Earner Benefit (NEB), and funding for a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG and approved the psychological assessment as reasonable and necessary to investigate the pain symptomology.

However, the claim for an NEB was dismissed because the medical evidence and the applicant's post-accident activities, including returning to part-time work, did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and various medical and assessment costs following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not meet the test for a non-earner benefit, as video surveillance and independent medical examinations demonstrated he had returned to most activities of daily living and his ongoing impairments were largely attributable to pre-existing cancer and chemotherapy.

The claims for psychological treatment, attendant care assessment, and chronic pain assessment were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator approved the balance of a psychological assessment and dismissed the claim for a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically disputing the insurer's denial of attendant care benefits and transportation expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed competing occupational therapy assessments to determine the appropriate level of attendant care over several periods.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits at varying rates for different periods based on the most persuasive assessments, ultimately finding no entitlement beyond August 10, 2017.

The Tribunal also awarded transportation expenses limited to the amounts indicated on the submitted treatment plans, along with interest on overdue payments, but denied the claim for a special award.

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

The insurer denied various medical, rehabilitation, attendant care, and non-earner benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting that her medical evidence was unpersuasive and internally contradictory.

Furthermore, the applicant's claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed because her own statements to independent examiners demonstrated she had resumed a significant portion of her pre-accident activities.

The appeal was dismissed.