Heena Kapoor

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for a hospital bed rental, a catastrophic impairment assessment, physiotherapy, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found the hospital bed rental payable because the insurer's denial failed to comply with the medical reasons requirement under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The physiotherapy plan was deemed reasonable and necessary based on the treating physician's recommendation.

However, the catastrophic assessment and the disputed portion of the psychological services plan were denied.

Claims for a special award were dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing for removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological injury.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and that the psychological report was authored without reviewing medical records.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, rendering the disputed $13,306.63 chiropractic treatment plan moot.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the chiropractic plans were reasonable and necessary, as there was no medical evidence showing progress from prior treatments, supporting the respondent's expert opinion that maximal medical recovery had been achieved.

The Tribunal also denied the higher hourly rate for psychological services because the work was performed by a social worker, not a psychologist.

However, the Tribunal approved $360 for a psychological progress report, finding it necessary to justify further treatments.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, as he sustained only moderate, rather than marked, impairments in activities of daily living and adaptation.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychiatric assessment, noting the applicant maintained useful functioning such as driving, going to the gym, and caring for his parents.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRB, finding insufficient objective medical evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an IT technician.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant Keith Topping following a motor vehicle accident on October 20, 2015.

The plaintiff had settled her claim with Allstate Insurance Canada for $250,000 and assigned her right to pursue default judgment against the defendants to Allstate.

The defendant Keith Topping failed to defend the action and was noted in default.

The court granted default judgment in the amount of $250,000 payable to Allstate Insurance Canada.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis for the motion in the amount of $2,896.83, but declined to award Allstate its costs of the action.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant was not entitled to IRBs or interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which were denied by the insurer.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution.

The adjudicator denied the claims for chiropractic services, finding the applicant had not demonstrated that ongoing treatment would improve her condition.

However, the adjudicator granted the claims for a chronic pain assessment, a biopsychosocial assessment, and cognitive devices (a tablet), finding them reasonable and necessary based on medical evidence showing chronic pain, ongoing psychological symptoms, and cognitive difficulties.

The applicant was also awarded interest on the approved plans.

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment plans for chiropractic, shockwave therapy, massage, acupuncture, and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the proposed treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant exceeded the ordered page limit for written submissions and excluded the excess pages.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit and physiotherapy services.

The applicant failed to attend the videoconference hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As no evidence was presented, the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for three chiropractic treatment plans and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the first treatment plan of $1,423.60 because the insurer failed to provide a proper written denial within the required time limit under section 38 of the Schedule.

The remaining two treatment plans were denied, as the Tribunal accepted the respondent's orthopaedic assessment that the applicant's ongoing shoulder issues, which arose after a significant gap in treatment, were not attributable to the accident.

The claim for an award was dismissed for lack of evidence, but interest was awarded on the approved plan.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions (Crohn's disease and knee pain), chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's expert evidence.

The applicant was found to remain within the MIG and was entitled to the disputed treatment plans only up to the remaining $2,570.75 of the $3,500 MIG limit.

The respondent's request for costs was denied for failing to provide particulars.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence and did not comply with Tribunal orders.

As the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, the application for treatment plans was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed, as the dismissal of the application itself effectively addressed the applicant's non-compliance.