Keshma Sankar

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit, as the evidence did not establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life compared to his pre-accident baseline, which already included functional limitations.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for attendant care benefits, finding the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred or that the requested quantum was reasonable and necessary given his demonstrated abilities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRB) following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant was involved in a second accident in 2019.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's primary reason for his inability to work was a concussion and related symptoms, which were caused by the 2019 accident, not the 2018 accident.

The applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the injuries from the 2018 accident caused a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The application for IRB and interest was dismissed.