Dr. Alborz Oshidari

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 suffered from an accident-related psychological condition, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for a psychological assessment, a chronic pain assessment, and partially approved psychological services, but denied plans for a neurological assessment, driving rehabilitation, and physiotherapy.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of two physiotherapy treatment plans and a portion of a psychological treatment plan.

The Tribunal found the physiotherapy plans were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the insurer's examination assessors over the applicant's medical reports, which contained inconsistencies regarding pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal approved the disputed psychological treatment for observation and monitoring, finding it integral to the approved psychotherapy.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed, while interest was granted on the overdue psychological benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to chiropractic and psychological treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that chronic pain and psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG, and that the respondent's denial notices were non-compliant with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the denial notices were compliant and clearly explained the medical reasons for refusal.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 physiatry and psychology reports, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The applicant's reliance on a social worker's pre-screening report was given little weight as diagnosing a psychological impairment was out of scope.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological and physical injuries, as well as attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident was a necessary cause of her psychological impairments, noting significant pre-existing conditions and surveillance evidence contradicting her reported limitations.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the whole person impairment threshold for physical and psychological impairments combined.

Claims for attendant care benefits were denied as the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to produce clinical notes and records as ordered.

The Tribunal denied the majority of the treatment plans, finding insufficient medical evidence to support them and preferring the respondent's independent medical examination over the applicant's chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal awarded $300.00 for interpretation services related to a chronic pain assessment, as the applicant is deaf and mute, but denied all claims for transportation expenses due to the 50-kilometre deductible.

Claims for a special award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the respondent's denial notices were statutorily deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the denial notices were valid and the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment and chiropractic services.

The Tribunal found the chronic pain assessment reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's persistent pain complaints and the lack of treatment while incarcerated.

The Tribunal gave limited weight to the respondent's medical examination report due to its lack of analysis and failure to review treating physician records.

However, the Tribunal denied the chiropractic services plan as it lacked support from the applicant's treating practitioners.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed as no submissions were provided.

The applicant sought $2,460 for a Chronic Pain Assessment following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied based on a s. 44 insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the assessment reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's treating practitioners consistently documented chronic pain and even the respondent's assessor acknowledged the applicant's considerable discomfort.

The Tribunal also granted an award of 25% under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the respondent's denial stubborn and inflexible given the overwhelming medical evidence of chronic pain.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to chiropractic services and a psychological assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

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

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a pre-existing condition or accident-related psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's section 44 psychological assessment over the applicant's uncorroborated self-reports.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant's pain did not constitute a severe, debilitating condition accompanied by functional impairment.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limits and was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, an award for unreasonable delay, or interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, assistive devices, and occupational therapy services.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the need for attendant care benefits and assistive devices arose from the accident, noting her extensive pre-existing medical conditions and lack of corroborating medical evidence.

The Tribunal partially allowed the claim for occupational therapy services in the amount of $948.14 to assist the applicant in re-engaging with daily tasks, plus interest.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from accident-related psychological impairments, including PTSD and depression, which removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the disputed physiotherapy services and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue payments.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 and for costs, finding the insurer's conduct did not meet the high threshold of bad faith or unreasonableness.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant entitlement to a psychological services treatment plan and a chronic pain management program.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by approving a higher hourly rate for a psychotherapist and by misapprehending the credentials and evidence of its medical expert.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the psychotherapist was supervised and entitled to the higher rate, and that the adjudicator's assessment of the medical evidence did not constitute a significant error of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The reconsideration request was dismissed.

The applicant sought post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 'complete inability' test for post-104-week IRBs, relying on insurer's examinations and surveillance evidence showing her performing work activities.

The Tribunal denied claims for chiropractic services, massage therapy, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claims for a psychological assessment and a driving reintegration assessment to address her vehicular anxiety, along with interest on those overdue amounts.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan and an attendant care assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant sustained only minor injuries and did not require further assessment or physiotherapy.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $2,456.20 for a chiropractic treatment plan under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the plan based on an insurer's examination report.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, placing significant weight on the clinical notes of the applicant's physiatrist and rehabilitation consultant, which confirmed the applicant derived benefit from the treatments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the treatment plan along with interest on overdue amounts.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered claims for psychological services, dental services, and a chronic pain management program.

The Tribunal awarded the psychological services, finding the hourly rate for psychotherapy reasonable.

The Tribunal also awarded the chronic pain management program, accepting the applicant's expert evidence that treatment was necessary despite the respondent's argument that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome.

The claim for dental services was dismissed due to insufficient evidence linking the injuries to the accident.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and funding for physiotherapy and a physiatry assessment.

The insurer had suspended IRBs due to the applicant's failure to attend section 44 examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, relying on functional abilities evaluations and the applicant's return to work as a cashier.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for physiotherapy as not reasonable and necessary, and declined to order a special award, finding the insurer did not unreasonably withhold benefits.

The insurer agreed to fund the physiatry assessment, and the Tribunal ordered interest on that overdue payment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits (NEBs) and several treatment plans for physiotherapy, orthotics, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as her impairments were not continuous and she was able to work part-time.

The Tribunal denied the physiotherapy and orthotics treatment plans due to a lack of compelling evidence of their reasonableness and necessity.

However, the Tribunal granted the $2,200 treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, finding that the applicant's pain was worsened by the accident and warranted further investigation.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment based on mental or behavioural impairments, as well as ongoing income replacement benefits and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, as the accident exacerbated her pre-existing mental health issues, resulting in marked impairments in activities of daily living, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal also found the applicant entitled to a post-104-week income replacement benefit, concluding she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to her psychological impairments.

Claims for social rehabilitation counselling and a separate file review fee for a catastrophic assessment were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought payment for a chronic pain assessment following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence, such as contemporaneous complaints to her family doctor, to establish grounds for the assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, denying the treatment plan, interest, and a claim for a special award.