Dr. Sarvin Sabet Ghadam

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to treatment plans for chiropractic services and a functional abilities evaluation (FAE).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator gave little weight to the applicant's chronic pain diagnosis, noting it did not meet the AMA Guides criteria and was contradicted by surveillance evidence showing the applicant engaging in full-time studies and physical activities without visible pain.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's procedural motions to exclude the respondent's surveillance and insurer's examination reports.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that his psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, noting that the family doctor's clinical notes were largely illegible and did not reference psychological complaints.

The adjudicator also rejected the applicant's psychological assessment report because it was conducted virtually and the assessor relied on irrelevant medical records.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits (IRB), and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as she did not demonstrate Marked or Class 4 impairments in three of four functional domains, relying partly on surveillance evidence showing her ability to socialize and complete tasks.

Consequently, her claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal granted her claim for a post-104-week IRB, finding her severe chronic pain and heavy medication use rendered her completely unable to engage in suitable employment.

Several treatment plans, including for medical marijuana and lidocaine injections, were approved as reasonable and necessary for pain relief, while others were denied.

The claim for an award for unreasonably withheld benefits was dismissed.