Annie Padhani

The applicant sought payment for occupational therapy and rehabilitation therapy treatment plans following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the occupational therapy plan was duplicative of a previously approved plan that had not been exhausted.

The rehabilitation therapy plan was denied due to a lack of compelling medical evidence demonstrating it was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial notices complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and a pre-existing temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her TMJ precluded recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected the chronic pain argument, noting that the applicant's reported daily activities, such as gardening and painting her house, were inconsistent with chronic pain causing functional impairment.

As the MIG limit was already exhausted, the claim for a $850 physiotherapy treatment plan was dismissed, along with claims for interest and an award.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $31,452.52 in Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) paid to the respondent, alleging wilful misrepresentation of her employment status and income.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent wilfully misrepresented her pre-accident employment and income, as she claimed to be employed and earning $1,260 bi-weekly, but her Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) file and tax returns showed she was receiving social assistance and had no employment income.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay the $31,452.52 in IRBs, plus interest, pursuant to section 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant's expert evidence persuasive, concluding she suffered a Class 4 (Marked) Impairment in all four domains of function due to psychological and somatic symptom disorders.

The respondent's expert evidence was given little weight due to critical errors.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for various treatment plans and assessments, finding she failed to provide sufficient evidence or identify the goals to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

Following a motor vehicle collision, a jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages and $14,000 for past loss of income.

The defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's soft tissue injuries did not meet the verbal threshold under section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence, including surveillance showing the plaintiff conducting fitness sessions, and concluded the plaintiff failed to prove she sustained a permanent impairment of a physical, mental, or psychological function.

The claim for general damages was dismissed.