Dr. R. Moolla

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's accident-related psychological condition warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

However, the applicant was not entitled to non-earner benefits, as her post-accident activities demonstrated she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment (due to the insurer's non-compliance with s. 38(8) notice requirements) and a psychological assessment, but denied the remaining plans for chiropractic, psychological, neurological, and in-home assessments as not reasonable and necessary.

A claim for a special award was dismissed due to procedural unfairness, while interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic pain and left elbow arthrofibrosis warranted removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's claim for a $7,520.00 elbow flexion and extension unit because the applicant failed to submit the required OCF-18 treatment plan.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to an accident-related psychological impairment (anxiety).

The applicant was awarded one treatment plan for physiotherapy because the insurer failed to provide sufficient medical reasons for its denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, claims for non-earner benefits, an occupational therapy assessment, and assistive devices were dismissed.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting significant pre-existing limitations, and the occupational therapy expense was incurred before the treatment plan was submitted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, occupational therapy, psychological counselling, kinesiology, and psychotherapy.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits as they were not incurred.

However, the Tribunal approved the treatment plans for occupational therapy, psychological counselling, and virtual kinesiology, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the recommendations of various assessors and treatment providers.

The plan for psychotherapy by a registered nurse was denied as redundant.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to ongoing attendant care benefits, as the medical evidence demonstrated he was mostly independent in his activities of daily living and failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

The Tribunal granted one physiotherapy treatment plan for $4,022.42, finding it reasonable and necessary for pain reduction, despite the respondent's argument that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The remaining claims for further treatment, assessments, and treatment provider mileage were dismissed as they were either duplicative, not reasonable and necessary, or not payable under the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for an impairment assessment, a physiatry assessment, and a treatment plan for physiotherapy and massage therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the impairment assessment and the physiotherapy treatment plan were not reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's return to full-time work and independence in self-care.

While the physiatry assessment was also found not to be reasonable and necessary, the adjudicator held that the respondent failed to provide a compliant denial under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

Consequently, the applicant was entitled to the incurred costs of the physiatry assessment along with interest.