Dr. Husnani

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a chronic pain assessment and chronic pain treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 statutory limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries, preferring the evidence of the insurer's orthopaedic surgeon and the applicant's own treating chiropractor over the applicant's chronic pain assessors.

As the injuries were deemed minor, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans for chronic pain.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for chronic pain treatment and physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's medical evidence lacked precision and failed to link the proposed treatments to the accident or demonstrate how they would improve his function.

Relying on the respondent's medical assessors, who concluded the applicant's injuries had resolved, the Tribunal held the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a chronic pain assessment was also dismissed because the applicant failed to submit the required Treatment and Assessment Plan (OCF-18).

The application was dismissed in its entirety.