Dr. Ghouse

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact, including typographical errors regarding medical reports and errors in assessing a 9% whole person impairment rating for sleep impairment provided by a neurologist.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the typographical errors were inconsequential and would not have changed the result.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it did not err in rejecting the sleep impairment rating, as the rejection was based on inconsistent reporting and a lack of causal evidence linking the impairment to the accident.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs) due to psychological impairments.

The respondent terminated IRBs based on insurer examinations suggesting the applicant could work in alternative roles or teach yoga.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from severe depression and anxiety that prevented her from maintaining regular attendance or performing duties in a competitive, real-world setting comparable to her pre-accident career as a mental health consultant.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the post-104 IRBs with interest, but dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding insufficient evidence of unreasonable conduct by the insurer.

The plaintiff, Ms. Emmanuel, sought general damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

A jury found her 75% at fault but awarded general damages and Family Law Act damages.

The court then conducted a threshold analysis under the Insurance Act to determine if Ms. Emmanuel's injuries constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The court found insufficient objective medical evidence to support permanence of physical injuries and no sufficient evidence for psychological injuries beyond 2017, especially considering her post-accident activities and lack of consistent treatment.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action, finding that Ms. Emmanuel did not meet the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary damages.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought funding for a physiatry assessment.

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

Although the applicant was later removed from the MIG due to psychological injuries and chronic pain, the Tribunal found the physiatry assessment was not reasonable and necessary.

The assessment was proposed over two years before the chronic pain diagnosis, at a time when treating physicians only recommended physiotherapy.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the proposed assessment would be duplicative of a chronic pain assessment already completed by the applicant's own medical expert.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the respondent terminated them based on insurer examinations.

The applicant sought reinstatement of the benefits and approval for a physiatry assessment.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's medical reports did not support termination and that the applicant continued to suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a realtor and motel manager.

The Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits up to the 104-week mark, approved the physiatry assessment, and awarded interest, but denied the applicant's request for costs and a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming for massage therapy and an attendant care re-assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the massage therapy treatment plan partially reasonable and necessary, as the evidence showed it provided temporary relief of pain and improved function.

However, the Tribunal denied the attendant care re-assessment, finding the applicant's reported functional limitations were contradicted by social media evidence showing her traveling and participating in physical activities.

The applicant was awarded interest on the overdue massage therapy benefits but denied an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought various medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing that the applicant's needs stemmed from extensive pre-existing medical conditions, including Parkinson's disease and dementia, rather than the soft tissue injuries sustained in the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove the requested benefits and assessments were reasonable and necessary or causally related to the accident.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB), physiotherapy, catastrophic impairment assessments, and a special award.

The Tribunal found the applicant was substantially unable to perform his pre-accident employment due to chronic pain, entitling him to an IRB up to the 104-week mark.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment, denying him post-104 week IRBs.

The disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy and catastrophic impairment assessments were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer reasonably relied on its medical assessments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically a treatment plan for physiotherapy.

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

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary to support the applicant's maximal recovery from cervical spine and shoulder impairments.

The Tribunal approved the treatment plan but denied the applicant's claims for interest and a special award, finding the respondent's reliance on its medical expert was appropriate.

The applicant, a physiotherapist, sought statutory accident benefits including weekly income benefits and physiotherapy expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had opened his own physiotherapy clinic shortly after the accident and billed the insurer for self-administered treatments.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding his disability and need for treatment to be unreliable and entirely without merit, noting an irreconcilable conflict of interest in his self-treatment and billing practices.

The claims were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to reimburse the insurer's $1,000 assessment fee due to the frivolous and vexatious nature of the arbitration.