Rasul Kassam

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

At the hearing, the Tribunal denied the applicant's oral request for an adjournment, finding she had not taken reasonable steps to secure new counsel.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the application as abandoned.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments over the applicant's oral testimony and unsupported claims.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $100 in costs for her unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with Tribunal orders.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant's expert evidence persuasive, concluding she suffered a Class 4 (Marked) Impairment in all four domains of function due to psychological and somatic symptom disorders.

The respondent's expert evidence was given little weight due to critical errors.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for various treatment plans and assessments, finding she failed to provide sufficient evidence or identify the goals to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, income replacement benefits, and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits as they were not reasonable and necessary, nor were they incurred.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her claims for income replacement benefits and a psychological assessment, declining to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act due to excessive delay and lack of merit.

The remaining medical and rehabilitation benefits, including bathroom renovations and pool accessories, were denied as not reasonable and necessary for predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic impairments in a motorcycle accident, sought various statutory accident benefits denied by the respondent insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant entitled to attendant care benefits of $6,000 per month, preferring the evidence of the applicant's occupational therapists who accounted for his fluctuating daily functionality over the respondent's assessor.

The Tribunal also awarded $87,809 for home modifications and capped the assessment cost at $2,200, finding most proposed modifications reasonable and necessary.

The claim for dietician services was granted due to the applicant's accident-related appetite loss and blood sugar management issues.

However, the Tribunal denied funding for service dog training, finding insufficient evidence that it was a reasonable and necessary medical benefit, and declined to order a special award as the insurer's denials were not unreasonable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit, various medical and rehabilitation assessments, a special award, and interest.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidence showed she could perform the majority of her pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits, finding the applicant did not provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the treatment and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and awarded various medical benefits and assessments.

The insurer argued the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons, ignored its independent medical examiners, and erred in law by relying on a chiropractor for a chronic pain diagnosis.

The adjudicator denied the request, finding the Tribunal provided adequate reasons, properly weighed the competing medical evidence, and did not require a formal chronic pain diagnosis to determine the injuries were not predominantly minor.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, an orthopaedic assessment, assistive devices, and occupational therapy services.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was independent with his activities of daily living and failed to establish any economic loss for attendant care.

The adjudicator also found that the requested medical benefits and assistive devices were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's medical evidence over the applicant's contradictory and incomplete reports.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired in a 2010 motor vehicle accident, sought a rehabilitation benefit of $2,388.93 for occupational therapy.

The respondent insurer denied the benefit, arguing the treatment plan lacked measurable goals and timelines.

The Tribunal found the occupational therapy was reasonable and necessary to help reduce the effects of the applicant's physical and psychological disabilities and facilitate his reintegration into his family.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the benefit with interest, but denied the applicant's request for costs, finding the respondent's conduct during the proceeding was not unreasonable.

The applicant, who suffered catastrophic mental impairments following a 2010 motor vehicle accident, sought a rehabilitation benefit of $2,363.23 for occupational therapy services.

The respondent insurer denied the benefit, relying on an insurer's examination that found no clear rationale for continued therapy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary to help the applicant cope with her psychological injuries and reintegrate into her family.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the benefit with interest, but denied the applicant's request for costs, finding the respondent had not acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith during the proceeding.