Dr. Mohammed

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding with a claim for a non-earner benefit because he failed to submit a completed disability certificate (OCF-3) to the insurer.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as he failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence linking his ongoing complaints to the accident or demonstrating that a pre-existing condition precluded his recovery within the MIG limits.

The application was dismissed.

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 she suffered from chronic pain that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's initial injuries were soft tissue in nature and that the sudden onset of new symptoms nearly two years later was not causally linked to the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, and dismissed the claims for treatment plans, interest, and costs.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and that the proposed treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing conditions were the primary cause of her ongoing complaints and that she was able to perform substantially all of her pre-accident activities of daily living.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding the applicant failed to meet the test for a non-earner benefit and did not establish that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $3,539.72 for a physiotherapy treatment plan, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary, relying on the applicant's consistent reports of pain and the recommendations of both the applicant's assessor and one of the respondent's own assessors that further therapy was warranted.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the benefit with interest, but denied the applicant's claim for an award under Ontario Regulation 664, finding no evidence that the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.