Dr. Khan

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

The respondent determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied further treatment plans and income replacement benefits (IRB) after the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain or psychological injuries caused by the accident that would remove him from the MIG, noting he withheld information about a subsequent shooting incident from his assessors.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including the applicant's own treatment records and the insurer's examinations, confirmed the physical injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented him from working as a carpenter and security guard.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employments.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's experts because they were not informed of his second job as a security guard and relied on incomplete documentation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors and noted surveillance and employment records contradicted the applicant's testimony.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident while being transported in a police van.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to comply with section 33 production requests for relevant medical records.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence or persuasive analysis to prove that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary for accident-related impairments.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments but denied several treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the physical treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary as the physical injuries were predominantly minor.

However, the Tribunal approved the psychological treatment and assessments at reduced rates in accordance with the Professional Fee Guideline, and approved a chronic pain assessment to investigate the connection between the applicant's subjective pain and psychological diagnoses.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, including sprains and strains, met the definition of minor injuries.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, concluding that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment that would remove her from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that any pre-existing conditions would prevent her maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict awarding net general damages of $11,181.03, the court considered whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff, whose primary role was a homemaker, sustained permanent and serious impairments to important physical and psychological functions, including PTSD and depression.

The court ruled that the injuries met the threshold and dismissed the defendant's motion.

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

The insurer denied various medical, rehabilitation, attendant care, and non-earner benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting that her medical evidence was unpersuasive and internally contradictory.

Furthermore, the applicant's claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed because her own statements to independent examiners demonstrated she had resumed a significant portion of her pre-accident activities.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2013 and sought statutory accident benefits from the Insurer, claiming he suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The Applicant had a history of severe pre-existing psychological and physical impairments from prior accidents in 2002.

The Insurer denied the catastrophic impairment designation and various medical benefits, arguing that any impairment was due to the pre-existing conditions.

The arbitrator found that the 2013 accident materially contributed to the Applicant's psychiatric condition, worsening his impairment to a Class 4 marked impairment in activities of daily living.

The arbitrator concluded the Applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment and awarded the disputed medical benefits and examination costs, finding them reasonable and necessary for pain relief and assessment.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but the Insurer was ordered to pay the Applicant's arbitration expenses and interest on overdue benefits.

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological injuries, a pre-existing psychological condition, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's claims of psychological injury and chronic pain were not credible due to significant inconsistencies in her self-reporting to various medical assessors.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and governed by the MIG, dismissing her application for additional medical benefits and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her physical and psychological impairments removed her from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitled her to an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or severe psychological impairment that would take her injuries outside the MIG.

Furthermore, relying on the respondent's medical assessments, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The application for medical benefits beyond the MIG cap and for an IRB was dismissed.

The Applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder following a motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer argued his impairment was only moderate (Class 3).

The Arbitrator preferred the evidence of the Applicant's expert, who conducted a robust 14-hour assessment including collateral interviews and cognitive testing, over the Insurer's experts whose assessments were brief and lacked collateral information.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant's chronic pain and psychological conditions significantly impeded his useful functioning, meeting the criteria for a Class 4 Marked Impairment.

The Applicant was deemed catastrophically impaired.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various medical treatments, including physiotherapy, acupuncture, and a YMCA membership.

The insurer denied the treatment plans based on independent medical examinations.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found that the insurer and its assessors failed to consider the applicant's physically demanding summer employment, treating him merely as a sedentary student.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's expert reports as lacking sufficient reasoning and preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners.

The arbitrator concluded that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, ordering the insurer to pay the claimed amounts, interest, and the applicant's arbitration expenses.