Dr. Neeru Sharma

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, attendant care benefits, and numerous treatment plans for psychological, cognitive, and occupational therapy assessments and services.

The Tribunal found the claim for the non-earner benefit was statute-barred because the applicant failed to dispute the insurer's clear and unequivocal denial within the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for the treatment plans and attendant care benefits, finding the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary for accident-related injuries, largely due to significant pre-existing psychological conditions and a lack of supporting medical evidence.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The applicant sought $2,818.14 for psychotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant had already received 51 sessions and the supporting psychological report lacked specifics on the necessity, frequency, and duration of further treatment.

Claims for an award under Regulation 664 and interest were consequently dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied as the applicant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits, medical benefits, transportation expenses, an assessment expense, interest, and a special award.

The arbitrator found that credible psychological and orthopedic evidence established chronic pain and related psychological sequelae, taking the claim outside the Minor Injury Guideline and supporting entitlement to the disputed physiotherapy treatment plans.

Applying the Schedule's pre-104-week test, the arbitrator held that the applicant had a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment and was entitled to weekly income replacement benefits for that period only.

The post-104-week claim failed because the evidence did not prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment.

Transportation and interest were awarded, the in-home assessment expense and special award were denied, and expenses were left to further determination if necessary.