Sareena Harpreet Samra

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services and argued the applicant was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant was no longer subject to the MIG.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent's denial notice for the chiropractic treatment plan was defective because it lacked specific medical reasons, triggering the 'shall pay' provision under s. 38(11) of the Schedule.

The applicant was awarded the treatment plan costs once incurred, plus interest, but the claim for a special award was 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) and that she did not meet the test for a non-earner benefit.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to discharge her evidentiary burden to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also upheld the respondent's denial notices as compliant with the Schedule and dismissed the claims for treatment plans, non-earner benefits, and an award for unreasonable delay.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, as the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a psychological condition or other injuries warranting removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the claim for a $2,200 psychological assessment was dismissed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG, giving no weight to an unsigned, undated pre-screen report.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent's denial notice complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, as it provided sufficient medical reasons for the denial.

The application was dismissed, with no entitlement to the assessment, interest, or an award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, and medication expenses.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in her self-reporting and evidence of pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed treatment plans and medication expenses were not reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, with no interest or award granted.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, as her family doctor's clinical notes and records did not corroborate her reported physical or psychological impairments, and the psychological pre-screening report lacked psychometric testing.

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

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB), various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, as the psychological evidence relied entirely on self-reporting and lacked objective clinical support.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a real estate agent.

All claims, including requests for interest and an award, were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), physiotherapy, psychological treatments, and medication expenses.

The Tribunal found the applicant was disentitled to pre-104 week IRBs due to non-compliance with section 33 of the Schedule for failing to provide self-employment financial records, and did not meet the test for post-104 week IRBs.

The Tribunal approved the physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, but dismissed the claims for the unapproved portions of the psychological treatment plans and the medication expenses.

The claim for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's denials were reasonably informed by independent medical examinations.

The applicant sought payment for unapproved portions of three treatment plans for psychological services and attendant care assessments, arguing a social worker should be paid at a psychologist's hourly rate.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the unapproved amounts, including additional administrative fees and the higher hourly rate, were reasonable and necessary.

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

The application for benefits, interest, and an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was 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, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, noting a lack of medical evidence supporting chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed psychological assessment was not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit and funding for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding for failing to attend insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the respondent's notices of examination were non-compliant with the Schedule, allowing the hearing to proceed.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment due to inconsistencies in her evidence regarding her return to work.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plan as the applicant failed to provide goals or corroborating medical evidence to establish it was reasonable and necessary.

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) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a functional impairment related to chronic pain and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's pre-screening report.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor, and since the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The applicant sought payment for a treatment plan totaling $7,370.81 for catastrophic assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had approved portions of the plan but denied costs for clinical file reviews, transportation, and travel time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the denied portions were reasonable and necessary, noting that file reviews are subsumed within the $2,000 assessment limit under s. 25(5) of the Schedule.

The claims for the treatment plan, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an e-bike collision.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting a lack of compelling medical evidence for psychological impairments and relying on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, citing surveillance evidence showing the applicant working and riding a bike.

All claims for medical benefits, attendant care benefits, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, medical benefits for chiropractic and psychological services, and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

Surveillance evidence and employment records demonstrated that the applicant had returned to full-time, physically demanding work as a personal support worker during the period he claimed a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The requested treatment plans were found not to be reasonable and necessary, and no benefits were unreasonably withheld or delayed.

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

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was barred from proceeding because he failed to notify the insurer of his intention to apply within seven days, pursuant to section 32(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's daughter had reported the accident on the same day, and the insurer failed to obtain clear confirmation that no injuries were sustained.

Applying recent jurisprudence, the Tribunal held the insurer had a positive obligation to provide the application forms under section 32(2).

Because the forms were never provided, the 30-day timeline to submit the application was never triggered.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with his claim.

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 Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, supported by clinical notes and a psychological report, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved a $2,200 treatment plan for a psychiatric assessment as reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed due to lack of evidence, but interest on overdue payments was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to chiropractic treatment and a psychological assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that chronic pain and a psychological condition warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a chronic pain diagnosis caused by the subject accident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted evidence that the applicant's psychological issues were caused by a subsequent accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, and denied claims for an award and interest.

The Applicant sought various medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident, as well as an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Adjudicator found that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that the proposed chiropractic, physiotherapy, psychological, and occupational therapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Adjudicator preferred the evidence of the insurer's examination assessors, who found no objective evidence of ongoing musculoskeletal impairment and noted a lack of response to past physical treatments.

Claims for attendant care benefits and an award were also dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant sought entitlement to a treatment plan for physiotherapy services in the amount of $4,309.56, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous corroborating evidence and that the healthcare providers relied upon were not qualified to assess physical impairments.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.