Pravin Kedar

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, as well as the cost of several assessments, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the disputed treatment plans and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's medical assessors, who reviewed the applicant's complete medical records and found that further facility-based treatment would not lead to significant improvements and that the applicant's psychological issues were largely pre-existing or subclinical.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, assistive devices, and psychological services.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, chronic pain assessment, and psychological services, finding the applicant's evidence inconsistent and relying on surveillance showing her performing activities she claimed she could not do.

The Tribunal granted the treatment plan for assistive devices, as both parties' occupational therapists recommended them.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and attendant care benefits from the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal determined the quantum of IRBs payable, finding that post-accident employment income and CPP disability benefits were deductible, and applied the age 65 adjustment formula.

The claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed as the applicant's limitations were found to be caused by pre-existing conditions and unrelated post-accident strokes rather than the accident.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant interest on outstanding IRBs and a 35% special award under O. Reg. 664, finding the respondent unreasonably delayed payment of IRBs after August 2018 despite having sufficient information to calculate the amounts owed.

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

The central issue was whether the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant's medical experts opined that he suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments outside the MIG.

However, the adjudicator preferred the insurer's medical examination and the applicant's own statements, which confirmed he was working full-time, attending school, and maintaining his social life.

The adjudicator concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the application for benefits beyond the MIG cap, as well as claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to IRB as she failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal also determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as she provided no medical diagnosis of chronic pain or psychological impairment to remove her from the MIG cap.

Because the $3,500 MIG limit was already exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Finally, the Tribunal awarded $250 in costs to the respondent because the applicant and her counsel failed to attend the teleconference hearing without providing reasonable notice, which constituted bad faith.