Dr. V. Sivasubramanian

The Applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was barred from disputing several treatment plans because she failed to apply within the two-year limitation period, noting the insurer's denials were compliant with the requirements in Smith v. Co-operators.

For the remaining treatment plans, the Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding the Applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating that the proposed multidisciplinary, neurological, physiotherapy, and psychological treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed a severe neurocognitive disorder, rendering her incapable of caring for herself.

She sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's dementia pre-dated the accident and was not caused by it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the accident materially contributed to the onset and rapid acceleration of the applicant's neurocognitive disorder.

The Tribunal held that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental and behavioural impairment) and awarded income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits up to $6,000 per month, and specific medical treatment plans, along with interest.

Claims for an award under section 10 and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 and entitlement to income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to bar the application due to the applicant's failure to attend a follow-up insurer's examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the requested examination was not reasonable and necessary given the timing and lack of new issues.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove she suffered a catastrophic impairment, preferring the respondent's experts who found her impairments were moderate and largely attributable to a pre-existing major depressive episode.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits, an award, and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental or behavioural impairment).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, as she did not demonstrate a marked impairment in at least three of the four spheres of functioning.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's claims for attendant care benefits, finding she had not incurred the expenses and did not require the care, as well as various treatment plans and assessments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological services, chiropractic services, and a driver anxiety assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the requested treatments and assessment were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions and found insufficient evidence linking her current symptoms to the accident.

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

The applicant, a self-employed taxi driver, was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and expenses.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were minor and the applicant failed to attend an insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered physical and psychological impairments that caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment for the first 104 weeks post-accident, entitling him to income replacement benefits for that period.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's condition had improved sufficiently that he did not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment beyond 104 weeks.

The Tribunal also found the claimed medical benefits, including prescription drugs, chiropractic services, and an in-home assessment, to be reasonable and necessary.

The respondent's preliminary issue regarding non-attendance at the insurer's examination was dismissed, as the examination was not reasonably necessary.

No costs were awarded.

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.