Dr. F. Aghamohseni

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits (ACBs), and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's right wrist pathology pre-dated the accident and was not exacerbated by it, and rejected the applicant's claim of an accident-related psychological injury.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant sustained a minor injury subject to the $3,500 funding limit, disentitling him to the disputed treatment plans and ACBs.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding insufficient medical evidence to demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

Claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

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

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

The applicant contended that pre-existing back pain and accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims, noting her family physician's records did not substantiate a pre-existing condition or a psychological diagnosis.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological expert over the applicant's, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor and the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological services, chiropractic services, and a driver anxiety assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the requested treatments and assessment were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions and found insufficient evidence linking her current symptoms to the accident.

Claims for interest and an award under Regulation 664 were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for chiropractic/massage therapy, a psychological assessment, and psychological treatment.

The Tribunal found the chiropractic and massage therapy plan was not reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's physiatry assessment which recommended a home exercise program.

However, the Tribunal found the psychological assessment and treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, concluding that the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing anxiety and depression.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's psychiatric assessment because it failed to address the applicant's in-vehicle anxiety and lacked objective testing.

The applicant's claim for a special award under Ontario Regulation 664 was dismissed as the respondent had relied on its own medical assessments.