Dr. Razvi

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Schedule, concluding he suffered marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation due to a mental and behavioural disorder.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychiatrist over the respondent's assessor, who failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal approved the majority of the disputed treatment plans, including occupational therapy, chiropractic services, physiotherapy, and a catastrophic assessment, but denied a pharmacotherapy plan for medical cannabis as the requested amount exceeded the applicant's stated needs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs) and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting he had resumed working as an Uber driver.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to warrant removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical assessments which found no significant functional or psychological impairments.

The application was dismissed.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was awarded $677,143, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs based on reconstructed dockets due to a contingency fee agreement, including costs for a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) hearing regarding statutory accident benefits.

The court awarded $302,974.37 in total costs, allowing only a portion of the LAT hearing fees that constituted trial preparation for the tort action, and deducting certain disbursements as standard office overhead.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain assessment and multidisciplinary chronic pain treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment and assessment were reasonable and necessary, noting her significant pre-accident medical history of fibromyalgia and chronic pain, her return to full-time work, and the lack of corroborating medical evidence beyond a flawed expert report.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award under O. Reg. 664 were also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including medical and rehabilitative benefits, a non-earner benefit, and an attendant care benefit.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to establish psychological impairments or chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for non-earner and attendant care benefits, concluding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and was precluded from attendant care benefits due to the minor injury classification.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain benefits, determining the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and had exhausted the $3,500 limit.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain syndrome, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including a report from a chronic pain specialist, was inconsistent with her family physician's records and her own self-reporting.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's physiatrist's evidence that the injuries were soft tissue sprains/strains within the MIG.

As the injuries were minor, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for medical treatment, assessments, and other expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address his chronic pain, preferring the evidence of his chronic pain specialist over the insurer's assessor.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for additional psychological services, an orthopedic assessment, a duplicate chronic pain assessment, an accounting report, and prescription expenses, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden for those items.