Dr. Nayyar Razvi

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2022 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding the applicant's self-reports of pre-accident functioning were inaccurate, as he was receiving long-term disability and Canada Pension Plan disability benefits prior to the accident.

Surveillance evidence and testimony contradicted the applicant's claims of severe social and functional isolation.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, was not entitled to an IRB, and was only entitled to a minor portion of one treatment plan due to a late denial by the insurer.

The applicant sought medical benefits for a chronic pain assessment and treatment program following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of chronic pain inconsistent and insufficient to meet the AMA Guides criteria, concluding his injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $7,036.98 in income replacement benefits, finding he willfully misrepresented his receipt of employment insurance and disability benefits.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans for neurological and chronic pain assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant filed her appeal beyond the two-year limitation period, but the Tribunal granted an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

While the Tribunal found the applicant's injuries did not warrant removal from the MIG, it held that the insurer's denial notices failed to provide sufficient medical reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Consequently, under s. 38(11), the insurer was ordered to pay for the disputed assessments with interest.

The applicant sought removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain syndrome and a pre-existing condition of osteoarthritis.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including normal neurological results and the applicant's reported functional abilities, did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove that any pre-existing condition precluded maximal recovery within the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied, and no interest or award was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing back injury precluded recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the applicant suffered a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment as a direct result of the subject accident.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant is entitled to the disputed treatment plans only up to the remaining amount of the $3,500 MIG limit, as such benefits are deemed reasonable and necessary under s. 40(8) of the Schedule.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, supported by ongoing treatments and specialist assessments, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment but denied the claims for an attendant care assessment and chiropractic services, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the approved chronic pain assessment.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied various treatment plans 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 chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting that he worked full-time, was independent with self-care, and did not use pain medication.

As the applicant remained within the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 were denied.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied further treatment and non-earner benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome, relying on the applicant's credible testimony and the evidence of a chronic pain specialist.

Applying the Heath framework, the Tribunal also found the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life and awarded non-earner benefits.

The disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment were deemed reasonable and necessary and were approved with interest.

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

The respondent denied certain claims, including a chronic pain assessment and treatment, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries fell outside the MIG due to chronic pain or psychological impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the disputed assessment and treatment plans were not payable as the MIG limit had been exhausted.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent failed to file written submissions by the extended deadline, and its late reply submissions were excluded.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG, relying on medical reports diagnosing chronic pain syndrome and ongoing physical impairments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed physiotherapy services and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, along with interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on physical injuries, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical examinations over the applicant's evidence, noting inconsistencies and a lack of functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans, interest, and award were denied.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a cannabis prescription, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and assistive devices.

The insurer denied the cannabis prescription pending a section 44 assessment, which the applicant refused to attend, arguing it was unreasonable and not permitted for prescription drugs.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was barred from proceeding with the cannabis claim because the insurer's request for a section 44 assessment was reasonable and properly noticed.

The Tribunal further dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and a rollator walker, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the insurer's assessors who found the applicant's soft tissue injuries were uncomplicated.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and interest on overdue medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, as the evidence regarding his job duties was contradictory and unclear.

Consequently, the claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay interest on the previously resolved claims for a chronic pain assessment and physiotherapy, payable once those expenses were incurred.

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

The respondent insurer denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed physiotherapy, psychological treatment, and chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, along with interest on the overdue amounts.

The applicant sought dispute resolution after the respondent insurer denied treatment plans for psychological, chiropractic, and massage services following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's ongoing pain complaints, supported by medical evidence, established a chronic pain condition that removed him from the MIG.

However, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant failed to prove the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as there was insufficient objective medical evidence supporting the need for psychological or chiropractic intervention.

The claims for the treatment plans, a special award, and interest were dismissed.