Navjot Banipal

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for psychological services, arguing the applicant was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the application was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found the application was filed in time because the deadline fell on a weekend and statutory holiday.

However, the Tribunal held the applicant to the MIG because she failed to provide submissions or evidence to warrant removal.

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

As the treatment plan exceeded the MIG limits, it was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including transportation services, chiropractic services, and psychological assessments and services.

The respondent denied or partially approved the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant did not provide sufficient medical evidence to support the need for transportation expenses, facility-based chiropractic treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline, or extended psychological sessions.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued her injuries fell outside the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that her mild scoliosis and arthritic pain were caused or exacerbated by the accident to the level of chronic pain with functional impairment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no objective medical evidence of a psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

As the injuries did not remove the applicant from the MIG, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and special award were denied.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits and scheduled multiple insurer's examinations (IEs) to determine if the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and to assess a treatment plan.

The applicant failed to attend two scheduled IEs and cancelled four others without providing a reasonable explanation.

The Tribunal found the IEs were reasonably necessary and held that the applicant's non-compliance breached s. 44(1) of the Schedule.

Consequently, pursuant to s. 55(1), the applicant is barred from proceeding to a hearing for all benefits claimed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, a psychological assessment, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a psychological diagnosis or impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG, noting he had returned to his pre-accident academic and social activities.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as the applicant did not establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing insomnia and mild obstructive sleep apnea, which were exacerbated by the accident, prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG.

The applicant was removed from the MIG and awarded funding for a psychological assessment, psychotherapy services, and a psychiatric assessment at a reduced rate, along with interest on overdue benefits.

One duplicative psychological assessment was denied.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition preventing recovery, and preferred the insurer's medical examinations over the applicant's self-reports and expert evidence regarding chronic pain and psychological impairments.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, and dismissed the claims for four treatment plans and interest, as the plans exceeded the MIG limit and were not proven reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for four treatment plans: physiotherapy, an attendant care assessment, an orthopedic assessment, and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment and assessment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on the insurer's examination report which concluded the applicant had achieved maximal recovery.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that the respondent's denial notices were deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, rendering the s. 44 assessment reports void and triggering mandatory payment under s. 38(11).

The Tribunal found that while some initial notices were deficient, the applicant was not entitled to the treatment plans because they were not incurred prior to the deficient notice being cured.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that attending an assessment after a deficient notice waives the right to benefits.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The applicant was injured in a bicycle/motor vehicle collision and sought attendant care benefits and an award for unreasonably delayed treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits as she had regained independence in her activities of daily living.

However, the Tribunal found the insurer unreasonably delayed approving four treatment plans by keeping the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline despite receiving a neurologist's report diagnosing a concussion.

The Tribunal awarded 25% of the value of the delayed plans ($2,657.54) plus interest.

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 submissions or evidence, nor did they request an extension.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Finding that the applicant failed to meet their burden of proof, the Tribunal dismissed the application.