Dr. M. Khan

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including physiotherapy, psychological treatment, and chronic pain programs, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the first two physiotherapy plans were reasonable and necessary based on contemporaneous clinical notes and records showing ongoing physical impairment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the remaining physiotherapy plans and all other treatment and assessment plans, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden and relying on unpersuasive or unsupported expert reports.

The applicant was awarded the first two physiotherapy plans with interest, and the remainder of the application was dismissed.

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

The Respondent denied claims for attendant care benefits, an accounting report, various treatment plans, and prescription cannabis.

The Tribunal found that the attendant care benefits were not incurred and the accounting report was not reasonably required.

The disputed treatment plans were found not reasonable and necessary, largely based on uncontroverted insurer's examination reports indicating the Applicant had reached maximum medical recovery or that further facility-based treatment was not supported.

The Respondent agreed to pay for one treatment plan and the incurred prescription cannabis expenses.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying him income replacement benefits beyond 104 weeks post-accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made errors of fact and law regarding his pre- and post-accident employment, medical restrictions, and the legal test for post-104 IRBs.

The tribunal found no errors of fact, noting the applicant returned to work at a reduced capacity and failed to provide medical evidence restricting him from working full-time.

The tribunal also found no error of law, as the adjudicator properly assessed the applicant's disability and employment competencies in a real-world setting.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The Applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming that chronic pain syndrome prevented him from working full-time.

The Applicant had returned to his pre-accident role but at reduced hours.

The Respondent denied the IRBs, arguing the Applicant did not meet the post-104 test of suffering a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the Applicant suffered from chronic pain, he had successfully returned to work at two-thirds capacity and maintained his status and reward.

The Tribunal preferred the Respondent's medical evidence that the Applicant was not medically restricted from working and would benefit from workplace accommodations and exercise.