Dr. Bita Sharifzadeh

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including psychological, chiropractic, massage, physiotherapy, and chronic pain assessments, as well as a catastrophic impairment determination assessment, following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

Specifically, the Tribunal noted a lack of objective medical evidence linking the applicant's psychological and physical complaints to the subject accident rather than subsequent accidents, and highlighted significant gaps in the medical evidence.

The applicant, who was 10 years old at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitlement to various psychological treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained accident-related psychological injuries, including PTSD and vehicular anxiety, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for psychological services and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, a proposed family psychological assessment was denied as duplicative.

The applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant sought removal from the MIG based on a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological assessment unreliable as it was based on subjective reporting without corroborating medical records and lacked adequate validity testing.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found the applicant may be attempting to present herself as especially symptomatic.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not prove a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and no interest was owed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB), medical benefits, and an award under s. 10 of O. Reg 664.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a personal support worker and Lyft driver, relying on the respondent's medical assessments and the applicant's family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal denied the claims for IRB, psychological services, a chronic pain assessment, and a driving reintegration assessment.

However, the Tribunal partially approved a treatment plan for a chronic pain program, awarding $2,346.70 for physical therapy and an SI belt based on a neutral OHIP-funded assessment.

The claim for a s. 10 award was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a $1,020 physiotherapy treatment plan, interest, and an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant also brought a preliminary motion to exclude the respondent's insurer examination reports due to late production of the assessors' CVs.

The Tribunal denied the preliminary motion, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of compelling contemporaneous medical evidence and relying on the respondent's s. 44 orthopedic assessment which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing his physical injuries and a psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor, noting a lack of compelling and contemporaneous evidence of ongoing complaints.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment, as the applicant had not made psychological complaints to his family doctor and the psychological assessment report was inconsistent with the medical evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were subject to the $3,500 MIG limit and dismissed the application.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which were denied by the respondent insurer.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispute the denial of a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and the determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, as there was no compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition or that the injuries fell outside the MIG.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, noting the applicant returned to work as an Uber driver shortly after the accident and failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied as they exceeded the exhausted MIG limits, and no interest was awarded.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment, and interest.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

As the injuries were predominantly minor and the applicant provided insufficient evidence regarding pre- and post-accident activities, the claims for the non-earner benefit and treatment plans beyond the MIG limit were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, claiming he suffered severe psychological injuries following the death of his mother in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant was not an 'insured person' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule because his psychological issues were pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had significant pre-existing psychological impairments, including major depression, and failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that these conditions were caused or aggravated by his mother's death.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's s. 25 psychological assessment because it relied on inaccurate self-reporting and the assessors did not review pre-accident records.

The application was dismissed, along with claims for interest, a special award, and costs.