Jag Dhirayain

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions (spinal fusion, Brown-Sequard Syndrome), chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his pre-existing conditions precluded maximal medical recovery within the MIG.

Claims of chronic pain and psychological injury were unsupported by persuasive medical evidence, with the Tribunal noting inconsistencies in the applicant's reported vehicular phobia.

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

All disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including occupational therapy services, medical services, and attendant care benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on insurer examinations which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and did not require the claimed services.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide corroborating medical evidence from his treating physicians to support the need for the treatment plans or attendant care.

The Tribunal noted significant inconsistencies between the applicant's occupational therapy assessment and his family doctor's clinical notes.

All claims for benefits and interest were dismissed.

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing ankylosing spondylitis and arthritis prevented her recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 assessments, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue sprains and strains.

The claims for a non-earner benefit and disputed treatment plans were dismissed, as the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life and remained subject to the MIG limits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and numerous treatment plans.

The Tribunal held that the 'complete inability' test for IRBs applies 104 weeks after the accident, not after 104 weeks of cumulative disability, and found the applicant did not meet this standard as she transitioned between similar factory jobs.

The Tribunal approved several treatment plans for chiropractic and occupational therapy services based on ongoing physical pain, as well as a later social work plan, but denied others lacking evidentiary support.

Claims for a section 10 award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for a non-earner benefit and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator committed breaches of procedural fairness, made errors of law and fact, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate his case, failed to properly pinpoint evidence in his submissions as required by the case conference order, and did not establish any procedural unfairness or errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant sought payment for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, a non-earner benefit, and the cost of various assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits or a non-earner benefit, as she failed to prove the expenses were reasonable and necessary or that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a chronic pain assessment and two Assessments of Attendant Care Needs, finding them to be reasonable and necessary expenses, along with applicable interest.