Dr. Mansour Alvi

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent also raised a preliminary issue seeking to bar the application due to the applicant's failure to attend an insurer's examination (IE).

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary issue, finding the respondent's notices of examination deficient for failing to provide sufficient medical reasons.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit, relying on the uncontested IE report of an orthopaedic surgeon.

Consequently, the disputed treatment and assessment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and no interest was payable.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to psychological impairments, chronic pain, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment, noting the respondent's expert assessments were more persuasive.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment, and no compelling evidence that pre-existing conditions precluded maximal recovery within the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG limits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and funding for various medical assessments and treatments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to pre-104 or post-104 week IRBs, as she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment tasks or a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment, largely due to credibility issues and lack of effort during assessments.

The Tribunal also denied funding for chiropractic services and a functional abilities assessment.

However, the Tribunal granted funding for a physiatry assessment and a psychological examination to further explore the applicant's chronic pain and psychological symptoms, along with interest on these overdue amounts.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to properly deny the non-earner benefits and a psychological assessment treatment plan in accordance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, entitling the applicant to those benefits for the period of the insurer's non-compliance.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life for the ongoing period.

The Tribunal also awarded a 25% penalty under O. Reg. 664 due to the insurer's unreasonable delay in adjusting the claim, particularly given the applicant's known vulnerability due to pre-existing schizophrenia.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding because he failed to attend a scheduled insurer's examination (IE).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance, thereby barring the appeal under s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule.

Although not required to decide the substantive issue, the Tribunal also concluded that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving his physical and psychological injuries fell outside the MIG, preferring the insurer's expert evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied the claims, asserting the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the appeal should be barred because the applicant failed to attend a scheduled psychological insurer's examination (IE).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not attending the IE, barring the appeal under s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule.

In the alternative, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG, preferring the evidence of the insurer's experts.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her claim for an income replacement benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal misapplied the test for eligibility, failed to state the standard of proof, and improperly considered certain evidence.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal correctly concluded the applicant was not working due to a temporary layoff rather than a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment.

The Chair also found no error in the Tribunal's application of the standard of proof or its treatment of the evidence.