Dr. Tajedin Yenus Getahun

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish he met at least three criteria under the AMA Guides for chronic pain, noting insufficient corroborating evidence for his expert's assessment.

The Tribunal also found the applicant unreasonably refused to attend a section 44 insurer's examination.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the funding limits were exhausted, the claims for additional treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident when a car ran over his foot, causing a crush injury.

He sought post-104 week income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to post-104 week IRBs as he failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

Claims for attendant care benefits were dismissed because the applicant was largely independent and failed to prove his mother sustained an economic loss.

The Tribunal approved some treatment plans for assistive devices and physiotherapy, finding them reasonable and necessary, but denied others due to lack of contemporaneous medical evidence or failure to submit prior approval.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his motorcycle and sought accident benefits from his insurer.

The central issue was whether the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant sustained a 55% whole person impairment, accepting the applicant's expert evidence regarding his physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, including routine use of a cane, sleep disturbance, and medication side effects.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay outstanding medical, transportation, and attendant care benefits, along with interest.

However, the applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed, as the insurer's reliance on its own assessors, while resulting in a denial of benefits, did not constitute unreasonable behaviour.