Dr. Chaudhry

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological injuries that warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal assigned little weight to the applicant's psychological assessment due to its reliance on self-reporting and failure to account for a pre-existing mental health history.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans for psychological and physiotherapy services, nor to interest.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from an accident-related psychological impairment, specifically an Adjustment Disorder, which removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating professionals over the insurer's assessors.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the disputed physiotherapy treatments, psychological services, and various assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The respondent was ordered to pay the disputed plans along with interest on overdue benefits.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic, and massage therapy, as well as a physiatry assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The claim for medication expenses was denied because the applicant had not first submitted it to his extended health coverage.

Interest was awarded on all overdue benefits.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for an electric bed and various occupational therapy devices, and attempted to argue the application was statute-barred due to the applicant's failure to attend an insurer's examination.

The Tribunal refused to hear the preliminary issue as it was not properly raised.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the electric bed, front entrance bench, carpet runner, grab bars, and body scrubber were reasonable and necessary due to the applicant's chronic left shoulder impairment and compromised balance.

The Tribunal denied the cost of bilateral railings for lack of a proper quote, and denied handheld shower heads as the applicant already had functional ones.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

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) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological injuries that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain, noting her own self-evaluations indicated 100% improvement shortly after the accident.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no psychological impairment warranting a DSM-5 diagnosis.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment and assessment plans were not payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming treatment plans for psychological services and chronic pain management.

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

The Tribunal noted the applicant's immediate return to work, lack of referrals from his family physician, and the insurer's examinations which found no accident-related psychological or physical impairments requiring the proposed treatments.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for physiotherapy, an orthopaedic assessment, and a chronic pain assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a lumbar disc protrusion and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish non-minor physical impairments or chronic pain, noting the lack of an in-person physical examination by the applicant's assessor and the respondent's assessor's findings of normal range of motion.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, an award, or interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed to suffer from chronic pain and psychological impairments requiring treatment beyond the $3,500 MIG limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries, relying on the insurer's examination reports which were consistent with the treating physician's records.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which were denied by the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the insurer's reliance on assessments limited to the MIG was flawed.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for chiropractic services, a neurological assessment, a driving evaluation, a chronic pain assessment, and a biopsychosocial assessment as reasonable and necessary.

Claims for cognitive devices, ergonomic devices, and an MRI screening were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence or failure to demonstrate necessity over OHIP-covered services.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.

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).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the MIG, dismissing claims for physiotherapy, chiropractic services, and orthopaedic/neurological assessments.

However, the Tribunal preferred the applicant's psychological evidence over the respondent's section 44 assessor, finding that the applicant suffered from severe depression and anxiety directly resulting from the accident.

Consequently, the applicant was removed from the MIG on psychological grounds, and the treatment plans for a psychological assessment and psychological treatment were deemed reasonable and necessary, with interest payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming costs for an attendant care assessment and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis of the Minor Injury Guideline and because they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, as she submitted no medical evidence to support her claims and did not rebut the respondent's medical reports.

The application was dismissed, and no benefits or interest were awarded.

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

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that the proposed chronic pain program, orthopaedic assessment, psychological assessment, and physiotherapy treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and reliance on subjective complaints.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of treatment plans for psychological services and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found the psychological services reasonable and necessary to assist with pain management and driving anxiety.

The Tribunal also approved the cost of the psychological assessment, rejecting the insurer's argument that the fee was unreasonable for lacking an hourly breakdown, as it fell within the Schedule limit.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue benefits, noting inconsistencies in the insurer's medical examinations, but denied the applicant's request for a special award under O. Reg. 664, finding no evidence that the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.