Mr. Atul Kaul

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 for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairments, and also claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit (NEB) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide a thorough comparison of pre- and post-accident activities to satisfy the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans and NEB were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, transportation expenses, chiropractic services, and lost educational expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting she resumed her university studies with the same course load as before the accident.

The claims for transportation and chiropractic services were dismissed for lack of evidence establishing they were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for lost educational expenses was denied because the tuition expenses were incurred after the accident, contrary to the requirements of section 21(5) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought entitlement to non-earner benefits and two physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in her testimony, a lack of supporting medical documentation, and surveillance evidence showing her engaging in various activities such as driving and shopping.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, finding the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on insurer examination reports that concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and should continue with a self-directed home exercise program.

The application was dismissed.