Dr. Ali Ghouse

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services, psychological services, and assistive devices following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's symptoms were due to pre-existing conditions and that the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found the chiropractic treatment plans and assistive devices were reasonable and necessary based on the treating family physician's clinical notes, though it reduced the amounts awarded for the assistive devices to their retail cost and capped the second chiropractic plan.

The claim for psychological services was dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for a non-earner benefit and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator committed breaches of procedural fairness, made errors of law and fact, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate his case, failed to properly pinpoint evidence in his submissions as required by the case conference order, and did not establish any procedural unfairness or errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB), an award for unreasonable delay, and interest.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was employed as a machine operator at the time of the accident and that the accident caused pre-existing degenerative changes in his lumbar spine to become symptomatic.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist over the respondent's, noting it was based on more comprehensive medical records including an MRI.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and awarded IRBs at $384 per week for the first 104 weeks.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment after 104 weeks.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The applicant also argued the insurer was barred from relying on the MIG due to alleged non-compliance with the 10-day notice requirement under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the insurer had complied with the notice requirements.

Furthermore, relying on medical assessments from both parties' experts which showed largely normal findings, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

The application was dismissed as the injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant sought various medical assessments following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the chronic pain and physiatry assessments were reasonably required due to consistent medical evidence of ongoing ankle pain and the risk of progressive osteoarthritis.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for work site, psychological, attendant care, and function and impairment assessments, finding insufficient evidence to support their necessity, particularly given the applicant's independence in self-care and lack of documented psychological symptoms prior to 2014.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments for the approved assessments.

The applicant was injured in a single-vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 or less.

The adjudicator found that while the applicant's GCS score dropped to 8T and 9T following surgery, this was due to pharmacologic sedation and intubation rather than brain impairment.

The applicant's initial GCS scores were 13 to 15, indicating no brain impairment upon arrival at the trauma centre.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict that assessed their damages from a motor vehicle accident at zero dollars.

The self-represented appellant argued the trial judge failed to provide adequate assistance, specifically regarding the exclusion of medical consultation notes and limitations on expert testimony due to non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably balanced his duty to assist the unrepresented litigant with the need to ensure fairness to the defendants.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the Insurer terminated them.

The Applicant sought arbitration for ongoing weekly income benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and a special award.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered from chronic pain and soft tissue injuries that prevented her from returning to full-time work, entitling her to ongoing weekly income benefits and specific rehabilitation benefits, including ergonomic equipment for a home office.

The arbitrator denied the Insurer's request for repayment of chiropractic expenses and denied the Applicant's request for a special award, finding the Insurer's actions were not unreasonable.