Dr. Nicole Azizli

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer partially approved the treatment plans, limiting sessions to one hour instead of the requested 1.5 hours, based on an insurer's examination report.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove that the 1.5-hour sessions were reasonable and necessary, as no medical evidence was provided to rebut the insurer's examination.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters complied with the Schedule.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Applicant failed to meet the onus of establishing that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant relied solely on the OCF-18 forms and self-reporting without providing sufficient medical evidence or explaining how the treatment goals would be met.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the respondent's denial notices were statutorily deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the denial notices were valid and the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found her entitled to income replacement benefits (IRBs) but quantified them at nil.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by admitting late-filed expert reports from the insurer's examination (IE) assessors regarding medical entitlement, and erred in law by finding she was self-employed and excluding her prior year's employment income.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration in part, varying the decision to vacate all findings related to medical entitlement due to the respondent's breach of expert disclosure rules.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request regarding the quantum of IRBs, finding no error in the determination that the applicant was self-employed and that her IRBs were correctly calculated at nil under the Schedule.