Dr. Gharsaa

The applicant sought $14,750.81 for a catastrophic impairment assessment following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan and argued that the issue of the applicant's chronic pain was res judicata based on a prior Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal found that res judicata did not apply as the issues were different and the prior decision did not address the cost of a catastrophic assessment.

The Tribunal partially approved the treatment plan, finding the physiatry, psychological, and occupational therapy assessments reasonable and necessary, but denied the costs for clinic file reviews, transportation, and interpretation.

The applicant was awarded $8,400.00 plus interest, but the claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's section 44 assessors who concluded the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery for his minor injuries and that his heel pain was pre-existing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 and interest, as no benefits were overdue.

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

The respondent denied the plans.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's left shoulder symptoms were caused by the accident, his right shoulder issues were not.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of medical recommendations for chiropractic care and relying on the respondent's section 44 orthopaedic assessment which recommended a self-directed exercise program instead.

The application was dismissed.

Personal injury trial arising from a 2015 motor vehicle accident involving a plaintiff with a prior 2012 collision and earlier mental health history.

The court rejected the defence theory that the plaintiff was malingering or merely misattributing pre-existing impairments, and found that the 2015 accident caused soft tissue injuries, chronic pain, psychological injury, headaches, and cognitive deficits that permanently impaired work and daily functioning.

Applying the but-for causation test and the thin skull rule rather than the crumbling skull principle, the court held that the plaintiff had substantially recovered from the earlier accident but remained vulnerable to more serious consequences from the later collision.

The court awarded general damages, past and future income loss, future care costs, and derivative damages to the family claimant.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were limited to soft tissue strains and that she failed to prove any psychological impairment or pre-existing condition that would remove her from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG funding limit had already been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

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 applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, claiming physical injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the physical injuries were minor, there was insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery, and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate his impairments warranted removal from the MIG, and dismissed the claims for treatment plans and interest as the MIG limits were exhausted.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied several treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a persuasive analysis or sufficient medical evidence to establish that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's section 44 examination evidence, which concluded the applicant sustained uncomplicated soft tissue injuries requiring no further facility-based care.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a minor, sought payment for a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG, as the medical evidence, including reports from her family physician and the respondent's assessors, indicated only minor injuries such as strains and contusions.

The claim for the psychological assessment was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied, as there was no evidence the applicant acted frivolously or in bad faith.

The parties settled a personal injury action on the first day of trial after the plaintiff accepted the defendants' offer to settle for $150,000 plus costs to be agreed or assessed.

The defendants brought a motion arguing the plaintiff was only entitled to costs up to the date the offer was served, relying on previous case law.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the plain language of the offer and the Rules of Civil Procedure entitled the plaintiff to partial indemnity costs up to the date the offer was accepted.

The court referred the assessment of costs to an assessment officer and allowed the plaintiff's expert disbursements.