Ms. Mehta

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for an orthopaedic assessment, assistive devices, chiropractic services, and a non-earner benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, largely due to a lack of supporting medical evidence and failure to submit the OCF-18 forms.

The Tribunal also denied the non-earner benefit, relying on insurer examinations and surveillance evidence showing the applicant continued to engage in normal daily activities and employment.

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

The core dispute was whether the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a concussion, pre-existing conditions, psychological injuries, or chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish any of these exceptions, noting that diagnoses were either outside the practitioners' scope, based solely on self-reporting, or lacked objective psychometric testing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to provide a detailed comparison of pre- and post-accident activities as required by the Heath test.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.