Adib Ashraf

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a chronic pain assessment and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that her accident-related soft tissue injuries caused functional impairment or met the criteria for chronic pain syndrome under the AMA Guides.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claim for the chronic pain assessment, and denied claims for an award and interest.

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

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

The applicant argued that a pre-existing condition from a pedestrian accident days prior, as well as chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded maximal recovery within the MIG, or that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied due to non-compliance with the Tribunal's rules.

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 that pre-existing shoulder and back conditions, as well as chronic pain with functional impairment, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing conditions precluded maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, relying on independent medical examinations, the Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence of chronic pain causing functional impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not assessed, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied due to procedural non-compliance.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the evidence of the respondent's independent medical examiners over the applicant's assessors.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as his pain was manageable and did not practically prevent him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits, medical benefits for physiotherapy, and the cost of examinations for mental health and chronic pain assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's expert reports due to their reliance on self-reporting without a Somali interpreter and failure to include signed expert duty acknowledgments.

The respondent's section 44 assessments, which utilized an interpreter and found symptom magnification and minor injuries, were preferred.

The applicant sought a medical benefit for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan on the basis that it was submitted during a period when the applicant was entitled to treatment under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the respondent was permitted to refuse the treatment plan under s. 38(5) of the Schedule and that this refusal was final and not subject to review under s. 38(6).

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to demonstrate that the chiropractic services were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed, and claims for a section 10 award and interest were also denied.