Dr. Osama Gharsaa

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit (NEB), chiropractic services, an occupational therapy assessment, and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's accident-related chronic pain and exacerbation of pre-existing Post Polio Syndrome continuously prevented him from engaging in substantially all of his pre-accident activities, entitling him to an NEB for 104 weeks.

The Tribunal also approved the treatment plans for chiropractic services and an occupational therapy assessment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts who considered the functional limitations caused by his pain.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's reliance on its independent medical examinations was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered from accident-related post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, these resulted in only moderate impairments in the activities of daily living and social functioning.

Consequently, the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for attendant care benefits, finding them not reasonable and necessary based on orthopedic evidence of normal range of motion.

Claims for an attendant care assessment and various treatment plans were dismissed because the applicant had exhausted the $65,000 non-catastrophic funding limit.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB), interest, and an award following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the NEB and requested the applicant attend insurer's examinations.

The applicant challenged the sufficiency of the notices of examination and the experts' duty forms.

The Tribunal found the notices of examination were sufficient and that the applicant failed to comply with the rules for challenging expert reports.

On the merits, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove he suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's medical evidence which was obtained during the disputed period over the applicant's evidence obtained well after.

The claims for NEB, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed as the applicant's conduct was not frivolous or vexatious.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied a physiotherapy treatment plan and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found the physiotherapy treatment was reasonable and necessary, preferring the clinical records of the treating physician over the insurer's examiner.

However, the claim for the chronic pain assessment was dismissed because the applicant incurred the expense before submitting the treatment plan, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries constituted a catastrophic impairment and fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove a catastrophic impairment, relying instead on persuasive Insurer Examination reports that found no significant neurological or orthopaedic impairments.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant did not demonstrate that his pre-existing injuries prevented him from achieving maximal recovery within the $3,500 MIG limit.

Claims for a special award and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and his claims for statutory accident benefits were dismissed in a prior arbitration decision.

In this subsequent decision on expenses, the insurer sought its costs of the proceeding.

The arbitrator found the insurer was entirely successful and therefore entitled to its expenses.

Applying a 2:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time, and allowing disbursements for expert witnesses while disallowing conduct money for uncalled witnesses and court reporter fees, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $21,387.48.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a chronic pain assessment and chronic pain treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 statutory limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries, preferring the evidence of the insurer's orthopaedic surgeon and the applicant's own treating chiropractor over the applicant's chronic pain assessors.

As the injuries were deemed minor, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans for chronic pain.

The applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits based on insurer examinations concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Tribunal found the applicant's ongoing pain and psychological impairments continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, entitling her to non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal also determined the reasonable and necessary quantum of attendant care benefits and ordered a 5 percent award against the insurer for unreasonably delaying payment of medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits for physiotherapy and assistive devices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a marble shop worker, which involved medium physical demand level work, and granted the IRBs.

However, the Tribunal denied the medical benefits for physiotherapy due to a lack of specificity in the treatment plan, and denied the assistive devices because there was no evidence linking the applicant's foot pathology to the accident.

Interest was awarded on the overdue IRBs.

The Applicant sought accident benefits following a rear-end collision, claiming entitlement to attendant care benefits and the cost of an attendant care needs assessment.

The Insurer argued the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant failed to meet the burden of proving his injuries fell outside the MIG, relying on the Insurer's expert medical evidence.

Consequently, the Applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits or the cost of the assessment.

The Applicant's claims were dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the Insurer's arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle.

He applied for accident benefits, initially electing a non-earner benefit, but later claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove he had a reasonable explanation for delaying his re-election.

Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria for an income replacement benefit, as he was not employed for at least 26 weeks in the 52 weeks prior to the accident and was not receiving employment insurance benefits at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator also concluded that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The claims for an income replacement benefit and a special award were dismissed.