Dr. Babak Sharifian

The applicant sought payment for three physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's own family physician recorded that physiotherapy was not helping, and neither the applicant's nor the respondent's medical assessors recommended ongoing physiotherapy.

The applicant also argued entitlement based on the insurer's failure to provide timely notice under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The adjudicator agreed the insurer was non-compliant but dismissed the claim because the applicant provided no evidence that the expenses were actually incurred during the period of non-compliance.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence, including expert reports, was inconsistent with his family doctor's clinical notes and his return to work as an Uber driver.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 assessments, concluding the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.