Sunish Rai Uppal

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing wrist fracture, chronic pain, and psychological sequelae.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing condition had healed and would not preclude recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence over the applicant's chiropractor, finding insufficient evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment or psychological injury.

As the injuries were deemed minor, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice while exiting a pickup truck he had taken for a test drive.

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the two-part purpose and causation test, finding that exiting a vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity, and that the use or operation of the vehicle was a direct cause of the injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was involved in an accident and ordered the application to proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found he was not involved in an accident.

The applicant argued that his failure to file submissions for the preliminary issue hearing was due to inadvertence and that dismissing his application without his submissions was unfair.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that inadvertently missing a deadline does not constitute new evidence or grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied benefits and raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the incident met the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Schedule.

The applicant failed to file any submissions for the preliminary issue hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to establish that he was involved in an accident.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine which version of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule applied to the applicant's transitional policy, and whether her claims were statute-barred.

The adjudicator found that the 2016 Schedule's definition of catastrophic impairment applied.

Applying section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, the adjudicator declined to extend the limitation period for the applicant's income replacement benefits claim due to incurable prejudice to the insurer, but extended the limitation period for her medical and rehabilitation benefits claims.

The appellant law firm, UL Lawyers Professional Corporation, appealed a Superior Court decision denying their request for a solicitor's lien against settlement proceeds.

The firm had represented the respondent client in motor vehicle litigation before being discharged.

The application judge found two of the three criteria for a charging order met but concluded there was no evidence the client would not pay.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in relying on an ambiguous undertaking and that a subsequent $5,000,000 lawsuit filed by the client against the firm provided sufficient "some evidence" that the client would not pay.

The appeal was allowed, and the firm was granted a solicitor's lien for $73,195.75 plus costs.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) from the respondent.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the motorcycle was insured at the time of the accident.

The Tribunal found that the motorcycle was not insured and that the applicant knew or ought reasonably to have known it was not insured, as he had previously secured insurance for another vehicle and failed to provide any evidence supporting his claim that he believed the vendor had arranged insurance.

The respondent was successful on the preliminary issue and is not required to pay an IRB.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) and medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a cleaner for the first 104 weeks, entitling her to IRB for that period.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited beyond the 104-week mark, as she had subsequently worked as a caregiver.

The claims for psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans were dismissed for lack of evidence proving they were reasonable and necessary.

A claim for a special award was also dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome, which removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal further determined that the proposed physiotherapy treatment plan was reasonable and necessary to provide temporary pain relief and improve function.

The applicant was awarded the $1,877.00 benefit and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) from the respondent insurer.

The respondent paid the IRB for a period but subsequently denied further benefits on June 15, 2015, based on a section 44 examination.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal on February 15, 2018, beyond the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial notice was clear and met the requirements of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal declined to grant an extension of time under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, as the applicant provided no submissions addressing the required factors.

The application was dismissed as time-barred.