Sunish Uppal

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 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.