Dr. Mohammed Abdul Wahab Khan

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including multiple treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological, optometric, and chiropractic services, as well as attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that the majority of the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal granted entitlement only to 16 instances of travel costs for a massage therapist, noting the applicant's inability to attend in-facility treatment at the time.

The claims for attendant care benefits and other treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant was awarded interest on the overdue travel costs.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, massage, and kinesiology treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the plans based on independent medical examinations suggesting the applicant's ongoing complaints were subjective or related to pre-existing trauma.

The Tribunal found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary, preferring the corroborative evidence of the applicant's treating family physician and s. 25 assessors over the respondent's experts.

The applicant was awarded both treatment plans and interest on overdue benefits.

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

The insurer denied funding for physiotherapy and medical expenses, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's spine impairments, including disc bulges and an annular tear, as well as chronic pain with functional impairment, placed him outside the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the disputed treatment plan, medical expenses, and interest on the overdue amounts.

The applicant sought payment for two chiropractic treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans, and the applicant argued the denials were procedurally defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial notices were compliant, as they provided specific medical reasons and relied on an Insurer's Examination report.

Because the applicant made no submissions on the substantive reasonableness and necessity of the treatment plans, the Tribunal dismissed the application and denied claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week post-accident mark, requiring him to prove a complete inability to engage in any reasonably suited employment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, relying on surveillance evidence and expert reports suggesting the applicant had some capacity for work.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony, corroborated by his spouse and medical evidence, established that his chronic pain and severe psychological impairments prevented him from sustaining employment.

The Tribunal placed significant weight on the applicant's experts and found the surveillance evidence did not contradict his reported limitations.

The applicant was awarded ongoing IRBs and interest on overdue payments.

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

The insurer denied income replacement benefits (IRBs) and took the position that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from pursuing his IRB claim because he failed to dispute the insurer's clear and unequivocal denial within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant failed to adduce compelling medical evidence of pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments to warrant removal from the MIG.

The disputed assessment plans were denied, and no award for unreasonable delay was granted.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2018 motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan, an award, and interest.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she met the criteria for catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6 (physical), 7 (combined physical and psychological), or 8 (mental/behavioural).

The adjudicator rejected the applicant's expert evidence, finding it inconsistent with the AMA Guides and unsupported by objective medical evidence.

The claim for the physiotherapy treatment plan was also dismissed as the applicant failed to include the plan in evidence or prove it was reasonable and necessary.

Consequently, the claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she suffered a catastrophic impairment under Criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a whole person impairment of at least 55 per cent, as the physical and psychological impairment ratings provided by her assessors were largely unsubstantiated by contemporaneous medical evidence.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove marked impairment in at least three areas of function due to a mental or behavioural disorder resulting from the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit, attendant care benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and an award for unreasonably withheld payments.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as the evidence showed he was largely independent with self-care and his pre-accident functional status was already limited by prior injuries.

The Tribunal denied the claims for a non-earner benefit, attendant care, physiotherapy, and a functional abilities evaluation, preferring the evidence of the respondent's assessors.

However, the Tribunal awarded $555.28 for specific assistive devices (long-handled cleaning tools, handheld showerhead, heating pad) and the cost of the treatment plan, along with interest on overdue payments.

The request for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence unconvincing and inconsistent with his treating physicians' records, which showed minimal complaints of pain.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's physiatry assessment, concluding the applicant suffered minor sprain/strain injuries.

The applicant was not removed from the MIG and his claims for a chronic pain assessment, physiotherapy, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) beyond the 104-week mark, claiming a complete inability to work due to severe psychological impairments, including PTSD and psychosis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's psychiatric evidence persuasive and concluded she met the test for post-104 IRBs.

The Tribunal also found the insurer unreasonably delayed paying the pre-104 IRB for approximately four years despite having all necessary information, and ordered a 20% award on the pre-104 IRB amount under Regulation 664.

The claim for an award on the post-104 IRB was dismissed.