Dr. Neetan Alikhan

The applicant sought entitlement to two treatment plans for physiotherapy and assistive devices following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The contemporaneous medical records did not support the need for the assistive devices, and an insurer's examination concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery with no objective evidence of ongoing impairment.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish that the chiropractic treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of supportive medical referrals and failure to link a knee injury to the accident.

The adjudicator also denied the disputed amounts for psychological services, finding no evidence to support the necessity of the specific administrative items claimed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the denial of a physiotherapy treatment plan and the partial denial of psychological treatment plans.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for physiotherapy, finding the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous corroborating medical evidence to establish it was reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal granted the disputed amounts for the psychological treatment plans, ruling that a registered psychotherapist providing cognitive behavioural therapy under the direct supervision of a psychologist should be compensated at the same hourly rate as a psychologist under the Professional Services Guideline.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant demonstrated psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The applicant was awarded several physiotherapy treatment plans, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, as well as interest on overdue payments.

However, claims for a non-earner benefit, orthopaedic, neurological, and neuropsychological assessments, and a section 10 award for unreasonable delay were 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 for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing injury, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical evidence that the injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and that there was no accident-related psychological injury.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal excluded several of the applicant's medical reports because they were submitted eight months past the document exchange deadline, prejudicing the respondent.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary insurer examination reports, which found no significant functional impairments.

The claim for the physiotherapy treatment plan was also dismissed as the applicant provided minimal argument or evidence to demonstrate it was reasonable and necessary.

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 sought removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of psychological impairment or functional limitations caused by chronic pain to warrant removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical evidence which was corroborated by the applicant's treating physician's records.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and assessments were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that their injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant also claimed entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor, relying on contemporaneous medical records and independent assessments.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, noting a lack of medical evidence demonstrating an inability to work.

All claims were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries, relying on the assessments of medical physicians over the applicant's chiropractor.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the applicant's injuries were subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, which had largely been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits, various treatment plans, and a chronic pain assessment from her insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, relying on surveillance evidence that contradicted her self-reported limitations.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for physiotherapy and massage therapy as reasonable and necessary, but denied plans for drive counselling, a treadmill, and a chronic pain assessment due to insufficient medical evidence and inconsistencies in the applicant's presentation.

Claims for an award for unreasonably delayed payments were also dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a truck's mirror while riding her bicycle and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a concussion, which falls outside the MIG, based on consistent reporting of symptoms and elevated SACT-2 scores.

The Tribunal also determined that the disputed physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's accident-related impairments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan and an orthopaedic assessment.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit applied.

The applicant argued that her injuries were not predominantly minor and that she had a pre-existing condition that would prevent her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence of a pre-existing medical condition that would take the applicant outside the MIG.

As funds remained within the MIG limit, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the treatment plan, assessment, and interest.