Dr. Abdul Wahab Khan

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $1,524.00 for a chiropractic treatment plan.

The respondent insurer denied the benefit, relying on an insurer's examination which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary, placing less weight on the insurer's examination as it was inconsistent with diagnostic imaging and the longitudinal clinical record showing ongoing shoulder and chest impairments.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the treatment plan.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant's claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed as she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

However, the adjudicator found that the respondent's denial notices for two treatment plans were non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, rendering the respondent liable to pay the incurred expenses under s. 38(11).

Claims for accounting reports and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were minor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support claims of chronic pain or psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he maintained or increased his pre-accident activities, including working as an Uber driver.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued her pre-existing chronic neck and back pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG, preferring the insurer's physiatry assessment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant's self-reported limitations were contradicted by pre-accident medical records and lacked corroborating medical evidence.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue seeking to stay the application because the applicant failed to attend a scheduled insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the requested examination was duplicative and not reasonably necessary, and thus the applicant was not non-compliant.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline on the basis of accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal also approved the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, a physiatry assessment, and a neurological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, and awarded interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and various medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under either Criterion 7 (55% whole person impairment) or Criterion 8 (marked impairment due to mental or behavioural disorder).

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, finding the applicant's impairments were primarily physical and did not significantly impede her useful functioning.

Claims for attendant care, occupational therapy, and physiotherapy were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary, while a small claim for prescription medication was allowed with interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), non-earner benefits (NEBs), medical and rehabilitation benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The adjudicator dismissed the claim for IRBs because the applicant had been on long-term disability for 20 years and was not employed at the time of the accident.

The claim for NEBs was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, with self-reported evidence showing he could still perform most pre-accident activities.

The adjudicator partially approved a treatment plan, awarding funds for physiotherapy and massage therapy to address exacerbated pre-existing conditions, but denied chiropractic and pharmacotherapy services.

The claim for attendant care benefits was deemed premature as the required Form-1 had not been properly submitted to the insurer.

The request for a special award was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, a concussion, and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's section 44 medical reports over the applicant's subjective reporting and family doctor records.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to provide a comparison of pre- and post-accident activities as required by Heath, and failed to comply with section 33 requests for an updated disability certificate.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG and no benefits were overdue, the claims for treatment plans, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit (NEB) and medical benefits for chiropractic and psychological services.

The respondent denied the benefits, citing the applicant's failure to comply with requests for medical records under s. 33 of the Schedule and relying on insurer examinations (IEs) that concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to refute the IE findings or establish that the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and funding for various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit because he failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal approved treatment plans for occupational therapy services, an occupational therapy assessment, and psychological assessments, finding them reasonable and necessary due to the applicant's accident-related psychological impairments.

A claim for physiotherapy services was denied as the applicant had reached maximum therapeutic benefit.

The Tribunal also awarded interest on the overdue payments but declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664.

The applicant sought housekeeping and home maintenance (HH) benefits and a special award following a catastrophic motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's traumatic brain injury and physical impairments resulted in a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident HH tasks, rejecting the insurer's reliance on surveillance footage and an Examination Under Oath.

However, the Tribunal denied payment of the HH benefits because the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred under section 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The claim for a section 10 award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not excessive or imprudent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on diagnoses including radiculopathy and chronic headaches, relying on letters from his chiropractor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of functional impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Preferring the respondent's physiatry assessments, which concluded the injuries were minor sprains and strains, the Tribunal held the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plan for chiropractic services and the claim for interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans and income replacement benefits (IRBs), arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's chronic pain condition, supported by her family physician's records and a pain consultant's report, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved two physiotherapy treatment plans and one psychological assessment as reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal denied a functional abilities assessment and a second psychological assessment due to a lack of submissions.

The Tribunal also denied post-104 IRBs, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was suited.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, a non-earner benefit, and several treatment and assessment plans.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove entitlement to attendant care benefits, as her self-reported resumption of daily activities contradicted the assessed needs.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, given her ability to continue nursing studies, drive, and perform household tasks.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the disputed treatment and assessment plans, preferring the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant's injuries were minor and did not require the proposed interventions.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, sought payment for several treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal denied the treatment plans for a sleep system and a scuba diving course, finding they were not reasonable and necessary as the applicant had a similar sleep system prior to the accident and was already engaging in other activities that supplanted the need for the scuba course.

However, the Tribunal approved the treatment plan for a rehabilitation assistant to help the applicant move homes, noting his physical and psychological impairments hindered his ability to do so independently.

The Tribunal also approved treatment plans for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy services, finding they provided necessary pain relief, but denied a duplicate chiropractic plan.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB) and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports which concluded she suffered only soft-tissue injuries.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRB, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment or a complete inability to engage in any employment.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent on the basis that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing he should be removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing back condition, chronic pain, and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition precluded recovery within the MIG, or that he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's treatment was limited to the $3,500 MIG cap.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, diagnosed as whiplash and sprains, were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claim of psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, as the latter failed to review the clinical notes and records which were void of psychological complaints.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were found not payable.