Ms. Vinita Tandon

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits, non-earner benefits, and a treatment plan for physiotherapy.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were related to a severe pre-existing workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his need for attendant care and physiotherapy was caused by the accident, as his pre-accident medical records showed similar functional limitations.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal awarded non-earner benefits for a brief two-week period due to the respondent's failure to pay following the submission of a completed disability certificate.

The application was otherwise dismissed.

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.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits (NEBs) and medical benefits for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to severe psychological impairment resulting from the accident, which continuously prevented her from engaging in her pre-accident activities of caring for her children and pursuing her vocational goals.

The Tribunal awarded NEBs of $185.00 per week and interest.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment, finding insufficient evidence that they were reasonable and necessary, as the applicant's impairment was fundamentally psychological rather than physical.