Mr. Rasul Kassam

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which were denied by the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal excluded the applicant's late-filed written submissions due to non-compliance with the case conference report and order, finding that admitting them would breach procedural fairness and prejudice the respondent.

Relying on the respondent's insurer examination reports, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to establish that the proposed treatment plans for visual therapy, occupational therapy, psychological services, and chiropractic/massage treatment were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, with no entitlement to an award or interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to non-earner benefits and medical benefits for psychological and chiropractic services.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she failed to comply with section 33 requests for information.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's non-compliance with section 33 relieved the insurer of liability for non-earner benefits.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, as she failed to prove pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary as they exceeded the $3,500 MIG limit.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant was not continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, as she had reported to the respondent's medical assessors that she could still perform self-care, housekeeping, and caregiving tasks, albeit with pain.

The application for the non-earner benefit was dismissed, and neither party was awarded costs.