Dr. Farshid Tabloie

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that the respondent's denial notices were non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, and therefore the treatment plans were payable under s. 38(11).

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial notices were compliant and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied an income replacement benefit (IRB) and two treatment plans.

On a rehearing, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the IRB, as medical evidence supported a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment due to chronic pain and a right shoulder impairment.

The Tribunal denied the April 11, 2022 treatment plan as it was submitted while the applicant was in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and duplicated an approved OCF-23.

The September 21, 2022 treatment plan was approved as reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the insurer's reliance on its assessors' reports was not unreasonable.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for an income replacement benefit and treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Vice-Chair found that the original adjudicator made significant factual errors by overlooking a key letter from the applicant's treating physician that connected his injuries to the accident, and by failing to explicitly consider the applicant's psychological expert evidence.

These errors were found to likely have impacted the outcome of the decision.

The request for reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and the matter was ordered to be reheard by a new adjudicator based on the existing written record.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a digital motion x-ray exam, assessments, and transportation expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to prove the digital x-ray and assessments were reasonable and necessary, relying instead on the respondent's insurer examinations which found no accident-related abnormalities.

The claim for transportation expenses was denied because the applicant failed to submit a required treatment plan.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as there was no evidence of unreasonable or bad faith conduct by the applicant.