Dr. Farhan Siddiqui

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a May 2020 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied treatment plans for chiropractic, psychological, and psychiatric services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG, noting a subsequent accident in June 2024 complicated causation.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters complied with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for two chiropractic treatment plans following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the plans based on insurer examinations concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement from soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting that her own treating practitioners had not recommended chiropractic treatment and the chronic pain specialist's report was given limited weight.

The claims for the treatment plans, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that chronic pain and physical impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish non-minor injuries, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports which concluded the injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue strains.

The application for treatment plans, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied two physiotherapy treatment plans because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing psychological conditions.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate that her pre-existing conditions precluded her recovery within the MIG, noting minimal evidence connecting her psychological issues to the accident.

The Tribunal also accepted the insurer's medical examination report concluding the physical injuries were minor soft-tissue injuries.

The application was dismissed.

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's physical injuries were predominantly soft-tissue in nature, supported by normal diagnostic imaging.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claim of psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's in-person psychological assessment over the applicant's telephone-based assessment.

As the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, the disputed treatment plans exceeding the $3,500 limit were not payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological treatment and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator denied the psychological treatment plans, finding an unexplained gap in treatment and a lack of supporting documentation.

However, the adjudicator granted the chronic pain assessment, concluding that the applicant's ongoing pain complaints and functional limitations made it reasonably possible she suffered from chronic pain syndrome.

The respondent's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his soft tissue injuries and headaches prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities, including camping, hunting, fishing, and volunteering.

The respondent denied the benefits based on insurer examinations.

The Tribunal applied the Heath framework and found the applicant credible, noting that his pre-existing conditions made him more susceptible to functional impairment from the accident.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the respondent's medical expert who claimed the applicant could perform all pre-accident activities, as the expert failed to list those activities or account for the pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life and awarded non-earner benefits and interest, but dismissed the claim for a special award under Regulation 664.

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

The respondent insurer denied treatment plans for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the respondent's initial notices denying the treatment plans were defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, as they failed to provide adequate medical reasons.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG due to her accident-related psychological impairments, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychological expert over the insurer's examiner.

The Tribunal concluded that all three disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, and ordered the respondent to pay for them along with interest on overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $2,520 for an orthopaedic assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent had already removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline based on a psychological assessment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the orthopaedic assessment was reasonable and necessary, as the clinical notes from the family physician did not document physical limitations requiring such an assessment.

The claim for the assessment cost, along with claims for interest and an award, was dismissed.