Amar Mohammed

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

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

The respondent also argued the applicant was barred from proceeding due to her failure to attend a second psychological insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the requested examination was not reasonable and necessary, as the respondent had already conducted one and failed to justify the need for an in-person re-assessment based on updated medical records.

On the merits, the Tribunal removed the applicant from the MIG, finding she suffered from accident-related chronic lower back pain with functional impairments, supported by her treating chronic pain clinic's records.

The Tribunal granted entitlement to psychological and chronic pain assessments, as well as physiotherapy, but denied a neurological assessment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychiatric issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (marked impairment in social functioning) based on psychiatric evidence showing severe social isolation and altercations.

The Tribunal awarded $2,000 for a psychiatric assessment but denied the remaining $13,005 claimed for other assessments.

Claims for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 were dismissed.

Procedural requests by the applicant for the adjudicator's recusal and a video recording of the hearing were also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, as his mental and behavioural impairments were moderate (Class 3) rather than marked (Class 4) in the domains of activities of daily living and social functioning.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a post-104-week income replacement benefit, as his combined physical and psychological impairments resulted in a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

Claims for occupational therapy and attendant care were dismissed as non-catastrophic funding was exhausted.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments but denied a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criteria 7 (55% whole person impairment) and Criteria 8 (marked impairment in three of four domains).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's whole person impairment was 47%, falling short of the 55% threshold, and that he did not suffer marked impairment in social functioning.

The Tribunal denied most of the disputed treatment and assessment plans, finding them not reasonable and necessary, but approved a $2,665.50 chronic pain assessment.

Claims for attendant care benefits, an award for unreasonable delay, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological issues.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, preferring the respondent's psychiatric expert who concluded her limitations were primarily physical rather than psychological.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for an income replacement benefit for the period up to 104 weeks post-accident, finding she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment on an assembly line.

Claims for attendant care, housekeeping, and physiotherapy were dismissed as the applicant's non-catastrophic funding limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for an award, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact, including typographical errors regarding medical reports and errors in assessing a 9% whole person impairment rating for sleep impairment provided by a neurologist.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the typographical errors were inconsequential and would not have changed the result.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it did not err in rejecting the sleep impairment rating, as the rejection was based on inconsistent reporting and a lack of causal evidence linking the impairment to the accident.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued she suffered a marked impairment in adaptation, relying on psychiatric and occupational therapy evidence.

The respondent contended the impairment was mild, pointing to pre-existing physical health issues and inconsistencies in the applicant's self-reported functioning.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence failed to differentiate between physical and mental impairments, concluding her limitations were primarily physical and pre-existing.

The Tribunal held the applicant suffered only a mild impairment in adaptation and did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

Both parties' requests for costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, claiming a catastrophic impairment.

On the second day of the hearing, the applicant refused to present evidence or make submissions on the substantive issues, instead raising numerous procedural motions including requests for an adjournment, a stay of proceedings, and the adjudicator's recusal.

The adjudicator dismissed the procedural motions, finding no compelling circumstances for an adjournment and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

Because the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden on the substantive issues, the application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming a catastrophic impairment due to a traumatic brain injury under section 3.1(1)4 of the Schedule.

The applicant relied on SPECT scans and an occupational therapy assessment to satisfy the two-prong test.

The Tribunal assigned no weight to the SPECT scans, finding they failed to distinguish the age of the injury or account for the applicant's pre-existing psychological issues.

As the applicant failed to establish positive findings of intracranial pathology on a medically recognized brain diagnostic technology, the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and numerous treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment, as he did not demonstrate a Class 4 impairment in three of four domains.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for income replacement and attendant care benefits, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden.

While the Tribunal found some of the insurer's notices defective, triggering the 'shall pay' provision for a cognitive assessment, most of the insurer's denials were deemed compliant with the Schedule.

The Tribunal ordered payment for cognitive and neurological assessments but dismissed the remaining claims and the request for a special award.

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

The respondent denied benefits and sought repayment of benefits already paid, alleging wilful misrepresentation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove he suffered an impairment caused by the incident, and therefore was not involved in an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to repay $2,315.00 in medical rehabilitation benefits, finding that the applicant wilfully misrepresented material facts, including that he was wearing a seatbelt and lost consciousness.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal assessed the applicant's impairments under criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant's whole person impairment rating was 46%, falling short of the 55% threshold required under criterion 7.

Under criterion 8, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim of a marked impairment in social functioning, finding his pre-accident history contradicted the expert's opinion.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for the cost of a catastrophic determination assessment, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest, as the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary onus.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2018 motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under either criterion 7 (whole person impairment) or criterion 8 (mental or behavioural impairment), rejecting the impairment ratings proposed by her assessors due to a lack of objective evidence and causal connection to the accident.

However, the Tribunal concluded that a $13,386.90 multidisciplinary chronic pain program was reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's ongoing pain-related complaints.

The claims for psychological services, a neuropsychology assessment, and transportation expenses were dismissed as the applicant failed to provide submissions or meet her evidentiary burden.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, and medical benefits.

At the outset of the scheduled five-day videoconference hearing, the parties advised that the issues in dispute had been settled.

The Tribunal closed the file.

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological injury and a pre-existing anxiety condition.

The Tribunal found insufficient contemporaneous medical evidence to establish an accident-related psychological impairment or that a pre-existing condition prevented her maximal recovery.

The applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, but she was entitled to the disputed psychological assessment up to the remaining MIG limit.

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

The matter was scheduled for a videoconference hearing.

The applicant, who was self-represented, failed to attend the hearing, provide reasons for non-attendance, or comply with production orders.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal Rules.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to present evidence or meet the burden of proof on any of the issues in dispute.