Paras Gogna

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for resolution, seeking removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate functional impairment from chronic pain or a diagnosed psychological condition.

Consequently, the applicant was held to the MIG limit, and the claims for additional treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for various treatment plans, including psychological and chronic pain assessments, and physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The applicant provided minimal evidence of chronic pain causing functional impairment, no evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery, and no objective evidence of a psychological injury.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and the application was dismissed.

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

The applicant sought funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence or submissions to demonstrate that his injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological conditions, warranted removal from the MIG.

As the applicant was held to the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans were not analyzed for reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG, and claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and various physiotherapy treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG, or that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the IRB claim as the applicant provided no evidence regarding her inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a psychological injury, specifically severe anxiety and depression, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's expert, whose report was found to be internally inconsistent.

The applicant was awarded $2,200.00 for a psychological assessment and interest on overdue benefits, but the claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB), interest, and an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as her injuries continuously prevented her from engaging in pre-accident childcare and housekeeping activities.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist over the insurer's section 44 assessors.

The applicant was awarded the NEB and interest, but the claim for a section 10 award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct did not rise to the level of being unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but his representative withdrew prior to the written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

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

Finding that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden, the Tribunal held that the applicant remains within the Minor Injury Guideline and dismissed the application for medical benefits, an award, and interest.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and approval for two treatment plans (interpretation services and an orthopaedic assessment) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a customer service clerk.

The Tribunal also found the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant could communicate adequately in English and her injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue strains that did not warrant an orthopaedic assessment.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.