Rakesh Sharma

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), chiropractic services, and attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the IRBs, finding the applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The claims for chiropractic services were also denied because the expenses were incurred before the submission of an approved treatment plan, contrary to s. 38(2) of the Schedule.

However, the Tribunal granted attendant care benefits from June 1, 2023, to September 30, 2023, as the respondent had previously approved the benefit and the applicant proved the expenses were incurred.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had terminated the IRB based on multidisciplinary assessments concluding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a restaurant server.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide supporting medical documentation to meet her onus for both the IRB and the treatment plan, relying instead on perceived deficiencies in the respondent's evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant's injuries were transient soft tissue injuries and that her psychological issues did not prevent her from working.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, including claims for interest and an award.

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 for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain with a functional impairment and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including clinical notes from his family doctor, did not support his claims of chronic pain or psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG, dismissing the claims for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, interest, and an award.

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

The respondent insurer denied certain benefits and argued at a preliminary issue hearing that the applicant was barred from claiming accident benefits under s. 61 of the Schedule because the accident occurred in the course of his employment, entitling him to WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to meet its burden of proving the accident occurred in the course of employment, as the applicant's sworn testimony indicated he was returning from a social visit.

The Tribunal held the applicant was not statute-barred and could proceed with his application.