Dr. Mehrdad Pojhan

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to a chiropractic treatment plan and an occupational therapy in-home assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's medical records did not support consistent complaints of ongoing pain, and he failed to produce updated clinical notes and records as ordered.

The adjudicator accepted the respondent's independent medical examination, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement with no objective signs of injury.

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

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, specifically an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, which caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment in customer service.

The Tribunal awarded IRBs in the amount of $287.88 per week for the disputed period, along with interest.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, as the insurer's conduct was not found to be excessive or indicative of bad faith.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing for removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological injury.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and that the psychological report was authored without reviewing medical records.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, rendering the disputed $13,306.63 chiropractic treatment plan moot.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing she should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, noting inconsistencies in the medical evidence and a lack of formal psychological diagnosis.

The Tribunal held the applicant to the MIG, rendering the disputed treatment plan for chiropractic services moot, and denied claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical benefits, and catastrophic assessment costs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to pre-104-week IRBs because she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment, noting she was on employment insurance for pre-existing conditions prior to the accident and had indicated she did not intend to return to her job.

The claim for post-104-week IRBs was also dismissed as the applicant provided no evidence of a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

Claims for outstanding treatment plan balances, including provider travel time and comprehensive file reviews, were denied as the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary or payable under the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan and an attendant care assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant sustained only minor injuries and did not require further assessment or physiotherapy.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a $4,008.42 physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence from a qualified physical rehabilitation specialist to support the plan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's physiatrist, who concluded the applicant had full range of motion and the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

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

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, interest, and an award following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she did not provide sufficient evidence of her pre- and post-accident activities to allow for a comparison under the Heath factors.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports over the applicant's psychological report, which contained several inconsistencies.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought $4,223.90 for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's medical assessment evidence, which indicated that the applicant had achieved maximum medical recovery and had normal ranges of motion, consistent with the clinical notes of the applicant's treating family physician.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and funding for psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a nail specialist, dismissing the IRB claim.

However, based on psychological assessments diagnosing adjustment disorder and anxiety, the Tribunal determined the applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG.

Consequently, the Tribunal approved the $2,200 psychological assessment but denied the $4,115.12 physiotherapy plan, preferring the respondent's physiatrist evidence that further physical treatment was unwarranted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and approval of various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, relying on insurer examinations and surveillance evidence that contradicted her testimony.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans and claims for an award and interest were also denied.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she did not meet the test for income replacement benefits (IRB).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries, which included chronic pain syndrome and a partial rotator cuff tear, took her outside the MIG.

The adjudicator approved all but one of the disputed treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary to address her chronic pain and functional limitations.

The adjudicator also found the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a packing finisher, entitling her to IRBs.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments, but a claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was denied.