Mandeep Kaur Singh

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing he should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment, noting the applicant's medical records primarily documented non-accident-related concerns.

The Tribunal also placed little weight on a psychological pre-screen report that relied on self-reporting without validity measures.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit, rendering the disputed treatment plans moot.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's accident-related psychological condition warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

However, the applicant was not entitled to non-earner benefits, as her post-accident activities demonstrated she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment (due to the insurer's non-compliance with s. 38(8) notice requirements) and a psychological assessment, but denied the remaining plans for chiropractic, psychological, neurological, and in-home assessments as not reasonable and necessary.

A claim for a special award was dismissed due to procedural unfairness, while interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, funding for a psychological assessment, and physiotherapy services.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in her self-reporting and a failure to provide evidence of her pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal assigned little weight to the applicant's expert reports due to methodological flaws and reliance on incomplete medical records.

The claims for the remaining balances of the psychological assessment and physiotherapy services were dismissed as they exceeded the maximum amounts permitted under the Schedule and Guidelines.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant was statute-barred for submitting her application seven months late and that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay due to documented cognitive and psychological challenges.

However, on the substantive issues, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish that her chronic pain and psychological impairments were caused by the accident rather than pre-existing conditions.

The application for removal from the MIG, non-earner benefits, and treatment plans was dismissed.