Dr. Gina Pohani

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to treatment plans for chiropractic services and a functional abilities evaluation (FAE).

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

The adjudicator gave little weight to the applicant's chronic pain diagnosis, noting it did not meet the AMA Guides criteria and was contradicted by surveillance evidence showing the applicant engaging in full-time studies and physical activities without visible pain.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's procedural motions to exclude the respondent's surveillance and insurer's examination reports.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and physiotherapy treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's soft tissue injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove his pre-existing heart condition precluded his recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant did not demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an Uber driver, noting post-accident stress tests showed physical capabilities similar to his pre-accident state.

All claims were dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as he failed to prove a psychological impairment or a documented pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed because the applicant returned to work full-time and failed to submit a required OCF-10 election form.

Of the four disputed treatment plans, three were properly denied by the insurer, but one was approved because the insurer's denial notice failed to comply with s. 38 of the Schedule.

The claim for an award under Reg. 664 was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer held that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied four treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services because the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the insurer's medical examinations over the applicant's evidence.

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