Dr. Ahmed Belfon

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that a pre-existing knee condition or a psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, and no interest was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal first determined that the applicant was not barred from proceeding despite failing to attend an insurer's examination, as the examination was requested months after the application was filed.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to an IRB because she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a customer service representative, having focused her evidence on her post-accident goal of becoming a hairdresser.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG, rejecting her claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment due to insufficient medical evidence and methodological flaws in her expert's psychological assessment.

Finally, the Tribunal found the insurer's denial notices were compliant with the Schedule, dismissing the application in its entirety.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant did not demonstrate a substantial or complete inability to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment.

Claims for attendant care benefits, treatment plans, interest, and an award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for two physiotherapy treatment plans and the cost of an attendant care assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary, relying on independent medical examinations which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery from soft tissue injuries.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, preferring the evidence of the insurer's assessors who conducted physical examinations over the applicant's occupational therapy paper review report.

The adjudicator found the applicant had returned to full-time work, was independent in personal care, and did not require further treatment.