Dr. Zubina Ladak

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 failed to prove her injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological impairments, warranted removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans, which exceeded the $3,500 MIG limit, were not payable.

Claims for interest and a section 10 award were also dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained an accident-related concussion, removing him from the Minor Injury Guideline.

However, the claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish the essential tasks of his employment or a substantial inability to perform them.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for a concussion assessment and a neurological assessment, but denied plans for a driving evaluation, a psychological assessment, and a second concussion assessment.

The claim for a bad faith award was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a psychological injury, specifically severe anxiety and depression, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's expert, whose report was found to be internally inconsistent.

The applicant was awarded $2,200.00 for a psychological assessment and interest on overdue benefits, but the claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, initially placing the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) before removing him upon discovering a toe fracture.

The Tribunal found that the disputed treatment plans, including laser therapy, a bone growth stimulator, further chiropractic and physiotherapy services, and a chronic pain management program, were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, finding that the toe fracture was uncomplicated and that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome under the AMA Guides.

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

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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit, finding insufficient medical evidence to demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment and assessment plans for psychological and chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, who concluded that the applicant suffered only minor physical strains and did not meet the criteria for a psychological diagnosis, over the applicant's self-reported complaints and the reports of his treating practitioners.

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 chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support chronic pain with functional impairment, noting the applicant's failure to produce requested medical and employment records.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, finding the applicant did not suffer a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer 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 documented pre-existing lower back and bilateral knee conditions precluded maximal medical recovery within the MIG, removing him from its limits.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for chiropractic services, medical devices, and a functional ability assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, treatment plans for an attendant care assessment and a psychological assessment were denied for lack of compelling medical evidence.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a special award of $1,714.36 under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by ignoring the pre-accident medical evidence.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a psychological impairment as a result of the accident, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for a psychological assessment and ambulance transport, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for physical therapy treatment plans, as the medical evidence indicated the physical injuries were minor and could be managed with self-directed exercises.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent insurer terminated IRBs after initially paying them, arguing the applicant could return to her pre-accident employment as a furniture salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical impairments, including exacerbated pre-existing degenerative conditions, and psychological impairments rendered her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment, which included prolonged standing, walking, and lifting furniture.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the weekly IRB of $336.45 from the date of termination, plus interest.