Dr. Sukhi Bhangu

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including treatment plans for occupational therapy, chiropractic, massage, psychological services, assistive devices, and multiple assessments.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits based on Insurer's Examination reports.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the majority of the treatment plans and assistive devices were reasonable and necessary, often due to a lack of evidence justifying the prolonged nature of treatment or the specific costs exceeding the Professional Services Guideline.

The Tribunal also found that an MRI was reasonably available through OHIP.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to a functional cognitive assessment and a chronic pain assessment, finding sufficient grounds to warrant further investigation based on the applicant's consistent complaints and psychometric testing.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the insurer's reliance on its assessors was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought post-104 income replacement benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a low-speed motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical, psychological, and pain complaints did not render her completely unable to engage in employment for which she is reasonably suited, such as customer service or hairstyling.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors and contemporaneous medical records over the applicant's experts.

The treatment plan was denied as past similar treatments had not been effective.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) post-104 weeks, as well as payment for chiropractic services and catastrophic assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, relying on surveillance evidence and independent medical examinations showing the applicant could perform employment-type activities.

The Tribunal also found the proposed treatment plans and assessments were not reasonable and necessary, as they were duplicative of previously completed programs or lacked justification.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a psychological impairment as a result of the accident, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for a psychological assessment and ambulance transport, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for physical therapy treatment plans, as the medical evidence indicated the physical injuries were minor and could be managed with self-directed exercises.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a concussion, psychological impairments, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a concussion or accident-related psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing conditions would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian involved in a motor vehicle accident, sought attendant care benefits of $1,000 per month.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to submit the required Form 1 Assessment of Attendant Care Needs.

Furthermore, the applicant provided no evidence that the expenses were reasonable and necessary, and the person providing the services did not incur an economic loss.

The application for attendant care benefits, along with claims for an award and interest, was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian involved in a motor vehicle accident, sought attendant care benefits of $1,000 per month, along with interest and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to submit the required Form 1 Assessment of Attendant Care Needs.

Furthermore, the applicant provided no evidence that the expenses were reasonable and necessary, and the friend who provided housekeeping assistance did not incur an economic loss.

As no benefits were owing, the claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.