Dr. Behzad Taromi

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit and several treatment plans for physical and psychological rehabilitation and assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examination assessors, who concluded the applicant sustained minor soft tissue injuries and a temporary adjustment disorder, over the applicant's evidence.

All disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The adjudicator found the applicant did not meet her burden to establish removal from the MIG, noting her high level of functioning, return to full-time work, and lack of corroborating medical evidence for her psychological claims.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were denied and no interest was payable.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motorcycle accident, along with entitlement to income replacement benefits, medical benefits, an award, and interest.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under either Criterion 6 or 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, preferring the respondent's medical experts and video surveillance evidence over the applicant's experts.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in employment, as he had returned to modified work and performed some DJ work.

The claims for unpaid assessments, assistive devices, an award, and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a self-employed steel worker, met the pre-104 week IRB test because his accident-related impairments rendered him substantially unable to perform the heavy physical demands of his pre-accident employment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for post-104 week IRBs, finding the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited, as he continued to perform modified and sedentary duties for his business.

The applicant was awarded pre-104 IRBs and interest on overdue payments.

The appellant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated IRBs on the basis that the appellant no longer suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove she was substantially unable to perform her pre-accident employment tasks after the termination date, noting her subsequent employment history and an intervening hand injury.

A claim for physiotherapy was denied because the treatment plan was not entered into evidence.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for an occupational therapy in-home assessment because the insurer failed to provide proper medical reasons for denying the treatment plan, making it payable if incurred.

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

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

Procedurally, the Tribunal excluded surveillance evidence submitted late by the respondent in breach of a prior order, awarding $300 in costs to the applicant.

Substantively, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the applicant's claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 cap were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and attendant care benefits from the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, who was self-employed in a physically demanding construction job, suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, relying on the respondent's own physiotherapist's assessment.

The Tribunal awarded IRBs at $400.00 per week and attendant care benefits based on the Form 1 hourly rate, along with interest on overdue payments.