Thulasi Kandiah

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including psychological, chiropractic, and chronic pain assessments.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and failed to consider evidence regarding her psychological injuries, post-concussive diagnosis, and chronic pain.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and noting that the original decision had explicitly considered the medical evidence and applied the AMA Guides for chronic pain.

The request for reconsideration 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).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to physical and psychological impairments, chronic pain, and a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The medical evidence supported that she suffered predominantly soft tissue injuries.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence of functional impairment or disability arising from the pain, noting the applicant had returned to work within the expected healing time for soft-tissue injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and she remained subject to the MIG limit, dismissing her claims for 12 chiropractic treatment plans and interest.

Additionally, the Tribunal awarded $150 in costs to the respondent because the applicant acted unreasonably by failing to comply with written hearing deadlines without explanation.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence in accordance with the Tribunal's orders.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to pay $250 in costs to the respondent due to his frivolous conduct in failing to comply with Tribunal orders and communicate regarding his intentions.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including psychological assessments, chronic pain assessments, chiropractic services, and a gym membership.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits and argued the applicant was barred from proceeding because she failed to attend a neurology insurer's examination.

The adjudicator found the neurology examination was not reasonably necessary, allowing the application to proceed.

However, the adjudicator dismissed all claims for benefits, finding the applicant failed to meet her onus to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as she did not provide sufficient medical evidence linking her complaints to the accident or showing the goals of the treatment plans could reasonably be met.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove an accident-related psychological impairment or a pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG.

As the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were denied.

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, exacerbation of pre-existing neck and shoulder conditions, and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain, lacked compelling evidence of exacerbated pre-existing conditions, and preferred the respondent's psychiatric assessment over the applicant's psychological report.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, and since the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for further treatment plans and assessments was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits, including psychological, chiropractic, yoga, massage, chronic pain, nutritional, and in-vehicle assessments, following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum therapeutic benefit for her minor soft tissue injuries and did not suffer from functional impairments or chronic pain requiring further assessments.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding she sustained a minor injury and was not entitled to certain treatment plans.

She argued the adjudicator failed to consider the report of an orthopaedic surgeon.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, noting the applicant improperly raised new arguments in her reply submissions and had failed to identify the allegedly ignored evidence in her initial request.

Furthermore, the adjudicator had already addressed the surgeon's report in the initial decision, finding it unpersuasive.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he sustained a minor injury and was not entitled to certain treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator failed to consider the report of an orthopaedic surgeon.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the applicant improperly raised new arguments in reply and failed to demonstrate an error of law or fact.

The adjudicator also noted the expert was not properly qualified at the initial hearing and his report was unpersuasive as the applicant maintained full-time employment.

The respondent's request for costs was dismissed.