Dr. S. Moshiri

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's medical evidence unpersuasive and contradictory.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks as a chef and had achieved maximal medical recovery.

Consequently, the claims for benefits and interest were denied.

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

The respondent denied medical benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline cap.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and treatable within the Guideline.

As the funding limit was exhausted, the claims for additional medical benefits and assessments were dismissed.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $372.21 for an overpayment of income replacement benefits.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident and subsequent knee surgery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life for the claimed period, as contemporaneous medical evidence indicated excellent recovery.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant no longer required attendant care services during the disputed period and failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain physiotherapy and psychological treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, noting the absence of any documented pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery.

The Tribunal accepted the insurer's expert evidence over the applicant's psychological assessment, concluding that the disputed treatment plans and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a Non-Earner Benefit (NEB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, relying on independent medical examinations which concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's testimony unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies regarding her marital status, gym attendance, prior accidents, and work history.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's unrefuted medical evidence and noted the applicant's failure to provide corroborating evidence for her claims.

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

The respondent insurer denied several treatment and assessment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions and accident-related psychological injuries removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that pre-existing conditions precluded maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, concluding the applicant did not suffer a psychological injury.

The application was dismissed, and no award or interest was payable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer deemed the injuries to fall within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), capping benefits at $3,500.

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition preventing maximal recovery, and no persuasive proof of chronic pain or psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG cap.

As the cap was exhausted, the claims for further benefits and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied funding for various treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, including ongoing pain, did not warrant removal from the MIG, as range of motion was normal and the applicant had returned to pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, finding no psychological injury.

As the applicant had exhausted the $3,500 MIG limit, the claims for further medical benefits and examinations were dismissed, along with claims for an award and interest.