Thusha Mayuran

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal first allowed the applicant's late-filed submissions, finding significant prejudice if excluded.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant had established a psychological impairment (adjustment disorder and driving phobia) that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for a psychological assessment, psychological services, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's ongoing complaints and supporting medical reports.

A treatment plan for physiotherapy was denied as it was inconsistent with the family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue benefits but declined to order a special award or costs, finding no unreasonable conduct by either party.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The respondent denied the claims, relying on section 44 assessments which found no significant functional or psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reported limitations inconsistent with physical examinations and preferred the respondent's comprehensive psychological assessment over the applicant's provisional phone-based diagnosis.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG and dismissed the claims for additional treatment plans and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and various treatment plans, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's inability to work was due to a COVID-19 layoff, not accident-related injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility due to surveillance evidence and inconsistent reporting regarding her employment termination.

Relying on the clinical notes of the applicant's family doctor, which indicated no accident-related impairments, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove entitlement to the IRB or that the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought entitlement to multiple treatment plans for chiropractic services, various assessments (psychological, neurological, cognitive, chronic pain, FAE, attendant care), and assistive devices following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the proposed treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted a lack of objective medical evidence, reliance on self-reports, and failure to provide clinic treatment records or progress reports to justify the ongoing identical treatment plans.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and funding for two physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he returned to work post-accident and provided insufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also denied the physiotherapy treatment plans, noting the applicant's back impairments likely resulted from two subsequent accidents and that he failed to demonstrate the proposed treatment was reasonable and necessary.