Dr. Mohamed Abounaja

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical benefits, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from accident-related chronic pain syndrome and adjustment disorder, which caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a general labourer.

Consequently, she was awarded pre-104-week IRBs.

However, the Tribunal denied post-104-week IRBs, finding she did not suffer a complete inability to engage in reasonably suited employment, given her ongoing college studies and completion of a practicum in mental health counselling.

The Tribunal also approved treatment plans for chiropractic services, physiotherapy, and a chronic pain assessment, preferring the applicant's medical evidence over the respondent's assessors.

Claims for costs and a special award were dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, massage, psychotherapy, and catastrophic determination assessments following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to prove the treatment and assessment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's more current section 44 assessment reports over the applicant's outdated section 25 reports and noted the lack of consistent recommendations from treating physicians.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in preferring the respondent's medical evidence over his own experts and in its assessment of his pre-existing back pain and chronic pain.

The adjudicator found no significant error of law or fact, noting that the original decision appropriately weighed the medical evidence, including the timing of the assessments and the applicant's own medical records.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing lower back pain and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a pre-existing condition that would preclude maximal medical recovery within the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical examination which found normal range of motion and no functional limitations.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing chronic shoulder pain and a post-accident chronic pain diagnosis.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical examination, conducted seven months post-accident, over the applicant's assessment conducted 37 months post-accident, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, psychological impairment, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, placing little weight on her expert's report due to a lack of contemporaneous medical support.

As the respondent had already approved the $3,500 maximum under the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and the application was dismissed.