Sofia Ahmad

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and funding for a psychological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a psychological impairment, including sleep disruption and anxiety, which warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the $2,200 psychological assessment as reasonable and necessary.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered a 25% special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, finding the insurer's conduct in denying the assessment and keeping the applicant in the MIG to be inflexible and imprudent.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a physiotherapy treatment plan in the amount of $3,631.87.

The respondent insurer denied the plan, relying on an insurer's examination report which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement from soft tissue injuries.

The adjudicator rejected the insurer's assessment, finding it minimized the applicant's injuries, and preferred the clinical records of the applicant's treating physician and rehabilitation clinic showing ongoing impairments and functional limitations.

The adjudicator concluded the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary and ordered the respondent to pay the claimed amount plus interest.

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 and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG limits.

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 that a pre-existing condition and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a nexus between his pre-existing conditions and the accident-related injuries, and failed to demonstrate functional impairment from chronic pain, noting he had returned to full-time work and reported no longer experiencing pain.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for attendant care and physiotherapy were dismissed, along with claims for interest and a section 10 award.

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

The insurer denied various treatment and assessment plans 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 a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy services beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, psychological impairment, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of psychological impairment, chronic pain with functional impairment, or that a pre-existing condition precluded recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the claims for further physiotherapy and interest.

The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy services following a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The adjudicator found that the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery and that the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on the insurer's examination and the lack of objective evidence of ongoing impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming costs for a chronic pain assessment and a chronic pain program.

The Tribunal found that the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the recent insurer's examination report over the applicant's older medical report.

The Tribunal noted the applicant was fully functional, working full-time, and had not utilized previously approved treatment.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and a special award 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).

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition affecting recovery and gave little weight to the applicant's psychological report due to inconsistencies with the family physician's contemporaneous records.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied certain medical benefits and disability certificate costs, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) $3,500 limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments caused by the accident, meeting the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain, which removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans, the costs of two disability certificates, and applicable interest, finding the treatments reasonable and necessary.