Sandeep Kaur

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought accident benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, claiming removal was warranted due to a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that her pre-existing mechanical back pain prevented recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no psychological impairment or chronic pain resulting from the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were denied, and claims for a special award and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence insufficient to establish functional impairment from chronic pain or a diagnosable psychological injury, preferring the respondent's s. 44 assessments.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claims for an award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was already exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

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

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological impairments that would remove him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to prove he sustained a psychological injury as a result of the accident, preferring the insurer's psychological assessment over the Applicant's evidence, which was given little weight.

Consequently, the Applicant's injuries were deemed minor and subject to the MIG's $3,500 funding limit.

The claims for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The three applicants were involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer denied the claims based on independent medical examinations indicating that the applicants' ongoing impairments were related to pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

The arbitrator found that none of the applicants suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and that the proposed treatment plans and attendant care were neither reasonable nor necessary.

All claims for benefits were dismissed.