Dr. Shreekant Sharma

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological and physical injuries, as well as attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident was a necessary cause of her psychological impairments, noting significant pre-existing conditions and surveillance evidence contradicting her reported limitations.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the whole person impairment threshold for physical and psychological impairments combined.

Claims for attendant care benefits were denied as the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

The applicant, a self-employed bicycle delivery person, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal assessed the applicant's mental and behavioural impairments across four spheres of function.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts, the Tribunal found the applicant sustained marked impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, chiropractic services, medical cannabis, and psychological services.

The Tribunal denied the claims for attendant care, occupational therapy, and physical therapies, finding the applicant's self-reporting unreliable and noting that physical therapies had previously plateaued without lasting benefit.

However, the Tribunal granted the treatment plans for medical cannabis and psychological services, finding them to be reasonable and necessary untrialed interventions for the applicant's accident-exacerbated chronic pain and adjustment disorder.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The applicant was injured in a bicycle/motor vehicle collision and sought attendant care benefits and an award for unreasonably delayed treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits as she had regained independence in her activities of daily living.

However, the Tribunal found the insurer unreasonably delayed approving four treatment plans by keeping the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline despite receiving a neurologist's report diagnosing a concussion.

The Tribunal awarded 25% of the value of the delayed plans ($2,657.54) plus interest.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a 2011 motor vehicle accident, sought resolution of a dispute over statutory accident benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to reimbursement for medical records requested by the respondent, as well as the cost of float therapy, preferring the evidence of the treating psychologists over the respondent's paper review.

Regarding attendant care benefits, the Tribunal awarded $975.24 per month, finding that while the applicant required assistance with feeding, hygiene, and basic supervision, his claims for skilled supervisory care to address depression and suicidal ideation were better addressed through psychological treatment.

The Tribunal declined to deem the attendant care expenses incurred or to order a special award, finding the insurer had not acted unreasonably in relying on its assessments.

The father brought a motion to change to terminate child support for his two adult children.

The mother opposed, arguing both children were disabled and unable to withdraw from parental charge.

The court found the 19-year-old son was not disabled due to a lack of medical evidence, terminating his support retroactively to his 18th birthday.

The court found the 21-year-old daughter was disabled due to autism and unable to withdraw from parental charge.

Because the daughter received ODSP, the court applied section 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, imputing minimum wage income to the mother and ordering the father to pay $15 per month.

The court declined to impute higher income to the father, who had been terminated for refusing a COVID-19 vaccine, due to lack of notice of the claim.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG and sought funding for chiropractic treatment and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility due to inconsistencies between his self-reports and the medical records.

Relying on hospital records, treating physician notes, and the respondent's independent medical examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries.

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

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a chronic pain assessment and chronic pain treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 statutory limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries, preferring the evidence of the insurer's orthopaedic surgeon and the applicant's own treating chiropractor over the applicant's chronic pain assessors.

As the injuries were deemed minor, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans for chronic pain.

The applicant, who suffered a psychiatric impairment following a motor vehicle accident, sought funding for a $25,425 Catastrophic Impairment Assessment.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the psychiatric condition was not caused by the accident and relying on multiple insurer examinations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while causation was questionable, it was reasonable and necessary for the applicant to explore the possibility of catastrophic impairment using his own assessors.

The Tribunal capped the funding at $12,200 pursuant to the Schedule's limits.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the Insurer, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and payment for various medical treatments and assessments.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered from chronic pain and functional limitations, exacerbated by his functional illiteracy, which rendered him substantially unable to perform his pre-accident employment and completely unable to engage in any suitable employment post-104 weeks.

The income replacement benefit claim was granted.

The claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed, as the Applicant's family and friends did not suffer an economic loss, and the evidence did not support the need for 24/7 supervision.

Claims for medical treatments and assessments were partially granted based on reasonableness and necessity.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired in a 2010 motor vehicle accident, sought a rehabilitation benefit of $2,388.93 for occupational therapy.

The respondent insurer denied the benefit, arguing the treatment plan lacked measurable goals and timelines.

The Tribunal found the occupational therapy was reasonable and necessary to help reduce the effects of the applicant's physical and psychological disabilities and facilitate his reintegration into his family.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the benefit with interest, but denied the applicant's request for costs, finding the respondent's conduct during the proceeding was not unreasonable.