Dr. Sharifzadeh

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a concussion assessment and a physiotherapy treatment program.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits based on an insurer's examination report.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including assessments from a psychologist, a chronic pain physician, and a concussion management physiotherapist, outweighed the respondent's general practitioner report, which lacked specific concussion testing.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed treatment plans and interest on overdue payments.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award, finding the respondent's reliance on its medical reports was not unreasonable or arbitrary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was barred from claiming a non-earner benefit because he failed to dispute the insurer's denial within the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as he failed to establish a pre-existing condition, chronic pain with functional impairment, or a psychological condition that would warrant removal.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied, and no award or interest was payable.

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

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

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological injuries that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain, noting her own self-evaluations indicated 100% improvement shortly after the accident.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no psychological impairment warranting a DSM-5 diagnosis.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment and assessment plans were not payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft-tissue injuries, rejecting the applicant's psychological expert evidence due to reliance on self-reporting and symptom magnification.

The Tribunal also held that the insurer's denial notices were compliant with the Schedule, and the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs due to the applicant's late filing of submissions was denied.

The applicant sought payment for a psychological treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent partially approved the plan but denied the balance of $4,918.00.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established the reasonableness and necessity of a sound machine and relaxation CD/DVD, awarding $188.00 plus interest.

However, the applicant failed to prove that the remaining balance, which included additional therapy session time, a CES medical device, and virtual reality sessions, was reasonable and necessary.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were minor and that she failed to provide compelling medical evidence of chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors over the applicant's psychological assessment.

The applicant was found entitled to the disputed treatment plans only up to the remaining balance of the $3,500 MIG limit, plus interest, but her claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.