Dr. Inderdeep Manhas

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and a hernia.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove chronic pain with functional impairment, noting he did not meet the AMA Guides criteria.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's social worker letter, finding no psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The applicant was held to remain within the MIG and was denied the disputed treatment plans and interest.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as an Uber driver, noting he continued to work full-time.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500.

The applicant failed to establish that his pre-existing chronic pain or alleged psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the claims for IRBs, disputed treatment plans, and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing osteoarthritis, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's medical evidence regarding chronic pain, noting she had failed to disclose five prior and subsequent workplace injuries to her assessors.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, and found the respondent's denial notices compliant with the Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits and medical benefits for chiropractic services and assistive devices.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The applicant argued that the respondent's notices of denial were deficient under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the notices were non-compliant, as the respondent provided clear and principled medical reasons for its denials and requests for insurer's examinations.

The application was dismissed, and no interest or award was payable.

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

The respondent denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed pre-existing psychological and physical conditions warranted removal from the MIG and sought a non-earner benefit.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of pre-existing conditions or impairments that would remove her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which was based on in-person assessments, over the applicant's expert evidence, which was based on telephone interviews and lacked corroboration in clinical records.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit, finding she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a section 10 award and costs, arguing the insurer unreasonably delayed removing him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and approving treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had initially denied the plans based on section 44 examinations but later approved them upon receiving updated medical information.

The Tribunal found the insurer's initial reliance on its medical examinations was permissible and its subsequent approval of benefits demonstrated a continual assessment of the file, not unreasonable conduct.

The claims for an award and costs were dismissed.