Dr. O. Safir

The Applicant sought various medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident, as well as an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Adjudicator found that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that the proposed chiropractic, physiotherapy, psychological, and occupational therapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Adjudicator preferred the evidence of the insurer's examination assessors, who found no objective evidence of ongoing musculoskeletal impairment and noted a lack of response to past physical treatments.

Claims for attendant care benefits and an award were also dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle in 2014, sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule after being denied by the respondent insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that further physical treatments, including occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and chiropractic services, were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant had largely recovered from her physical injuries and could manage residual pain with self-directed exercises.

Claims for orthopaedic, neurocognitive, and certain psychological assessments were dismissed as statute-barred under s. 38(2) because they were incurred before the treatment plans were submitted.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to a psychological assessment and psychological services, preferring the applicant's expert evidence that she continued to suffer from somatic symptom disorder and adjustment disorder.

Claims for an award and costs were denied due to a lack of submissions.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming he suffered a catastrophic impairment due to psychological and chronic pain issues.

The insurer denied the benefits, relying on assessments that found only mild impairments and suggested symptom exaggeration.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating psychiatrist and found the applicant suffered a marked impairment in adaptation, qualifying as a catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, finding the applicant completely unable to engage in suitable employment, as well as attendant care, housekeeping benefits, and the cost of a chronic pain assessment.