Dr. Florin Feloiu

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including treatment plans for massage therapy, physiotherapy, psychological services, and an in-home attendant care assessment.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of objective medical evidence supporting the requests.

The Tribunal awarded interest on two previously approved and incurred expenses but declined to deem other approved but unincurred expenses as incurred under s. 3(8) of the Schedule, finding the respondent did not unreasonably withhold payment.

The applicant's claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The parties both sought reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent sought to overturn the award of an income replacement benefit based on newly obtained medical records and a CPP-D denial letter.

The adjudicator dismissed the respondent's request, finding the new records did not alter the conclusion that the applicant suffered serious cognitive and psychological impairments.

The applicant sought reconsideration to approve previously denied treatment plans, providing two of the three missing plans.

The adjudicator granted the applicant's request in part, approving the physiotherapy plan and portions of the psychological services plan, but upheld the denial of the psychological assessment as that plan was still not provided.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian and sought income replacement and medical benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to ongoing income replacement benefits beyond the 104-week mark, as his accident-related psychological and cognitive impairments rendered him completely unable to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The claims for medical benefits were dismissed because the applicant failed to provide the required treatment plans (OCF-18s) to establish that the treatments were reasonable and necessary.