Dr. M. Khaled

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

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

The applicant argued he suffered from chronic pain and had a pre-existing condition that precluded his recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain or a pre-existing condition on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The application for a treatment plan, an award, interest, and costs was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued he sustained psychological impairments that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence uncompelling, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations which concluded the applicant suffered no significant physical or psychological impairments as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal held the applicant sustained a predominantly minor injury and was subject to the $3,500 funding limit.

As the disputed plans exceeded this limit, the claims were dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including assessments and chiropractic treatment, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on insurer's examinations and social media surveillance showing the applicant travelling internationally and engaging in physical activities.

The Tribunal found that only one chiropractic treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, supported by the family physician's recommendations.

The remaining assessment and treatment plans were denied, as the evidence demonstrated the applicant had returned to her pre-accident functional level and did not exhibit symptoms warranting further investigation.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's claim for an award under Regulation 664, finding no unreasonable delay by the respondent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered predominantly minor injuries, consisting of sprains and strains, and rejected the applicant's claim of chronic pain syndrome.

As the applicant failed to demonstrate that her impairments warranted removal from the MIG and the monetary limits had been exhausted, the claims for medical benefits, interest, and a punitive award were dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, as medical evidence indicated pain complaints had increased despite years of similar treatment, and objective testing showed normal range of motion.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.