Dr. Mohammad Khan

The applicant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, sought payment for several treatment plans denied by the respondent insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the proposed physiotherapy services were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and previous treatment yielded no functional gains.

The Tribunal partially approved the psychological services plan for the OCF-18 completion fee but denied administrative and planning costs.

The Tribunal approved the occupational therapy and case management plans, finding the requested hours for documentation and planning to be reasonable.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed, as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a personal support worker, suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment and was entitled to pre-104 week IRBs.

However, the applicant was not entitled to post-104 week IRBs as she was currently employed as a Lab Patient Technician, demonstrating she did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for the proposed treatment plans and assessments, finding insufficient corroborating medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as there was no evidence the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed benefits.

At a case conference and pre-trial for a motor vehicle accident personal injury claim proceeding under the Simplified Rules, the court addressed whether the trial could be completed within the allotted five days.

The plaintiff had initially proposed a witness list that exceeded the time limit.

After the plaintiff reduced her witness list, the court imposed a strict trial timetable to ensure the matter could be heard within five days, noting that the plaintiff chose the Simplified Rules and must bear the burden of fitting her case within its constraints.