Dr. Lakshmi Voruganti

The applicant, a Chinese tourist, was involved in a single-vehicle bus accident in Ontario and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment including a traumatic brain injury and severe psychological impairments.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing her ongoing impairments were related to pre-existing conditions and post-accident falls in China.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she sustained a traumatic brain injury in the accident, attributing her cognitive and physical decline to a probable cerebrovascular event and subsequent falls.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for catastrophic impairment, non-earner benefits, and most medical and rehabilitation benefits.

However, the Tribunal awarded CN ¥159,705 yuan for incurred attendant care services and CN ¥612.32 yuan for specific prescription medications, finding the respondent had sufficient information to adjust those claims and the applicant had proven they were incurred.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment.

She argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness by granting an insufficient adjournment after her counsel's files were lost to ransomware, allowing a witness order change, failing to provide adequate reasons, relying on outdated surveillance evidence, and accepting a novel 'substitution test' for causation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the adjournment was reasonable, the witness change was minor, the reasons were adequate, the surveillance was properly considered as part of a global assessment, and the correct 'but for' causation test was applied.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under criteria 7 and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, along with various medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's expert evidence regarding her physical and mental/behavioural whole person impairment (WPI) ratings to be unreliable, preferring the respondent's experts who correctly applied the AMA Guides.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the 55% WPI threshold under criterion 7, nor did she demonstrate marked impairments in three functional domains under criterion 8.

As the applicant's non-catastrophic benefit limits were exhausted, all claims for disputed benefits, awards, and interest were dismissed.