Dr. Waseem

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

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

Prior to the hearing, the respondent removed the applicant from the MIG and approved the disputed psychological treatment plans based on new medical evidence.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a physiatry/chronic pain assessment, as her ongoing pain complaints and the respondent's own assessments demonstrated a need for further investigation.

The Tribunal declined to order an award for unreasonable delay, finding the respondent appropriately adjusted the file as medical evidence evolved.

The court considered whether questions regarding past loss of income, future loss of income, and loss of competitive advantage should be put to the jury in a personal injury action.

The court found there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider past loss of income and loss of competitive advantage, but not future loss of income, as the evidence for the latter was speculative and insufficient.

The ruling reviews the legal standards for submitting damages questions to a jury and the evidentiary requirements for each head of damages.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome under the AMA Guides, noting he had returned to work, was independent in self-care, and did not exhibit excessive dependence on medication or family.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for disputed treatment plans and assessments.

In a medical negligence action, the plaintiff sought to call multiple expert witnesses of the same specialty to opine on the same issues.

During a trial management conference, the pretrial judge ordered the plaintiff to elect which experts would testify to avoid duplicative evidence.

The plaintiff objected, arguing that only the trial judge had jurisdiction to limit expert witnesses.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction under Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to make orders streamlining expert evidence and preventing duplication, emphasizing the need for trial efficiency and early disclosure.

The applicant was severely injured in a head-on motor vehicle collision and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After exhausting non-catastrophic limits, she sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to further attendant care, housekeeping, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired under Criterion 7, accepting a combined Whole Person Impairment rating of 59% based on physical and mental/behavioral impairments, including a mild traumatic brain injury.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care and housekeeping benefits for incurred amounts, as well as an occupational therapy treatment plan, but dismissed claims for physiotherapy and a special award.

The applicant was also ordered to repay income replacement benefits received while employed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved several treatment plans for chiropractic treatment, medical services, and an orthopaedic assessment as reasonable and necessary, but denied an expense for an MRI because no treatment plan was submitted prior to incurring the expense.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought weekly caregiver benefits following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits in September 2012.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, noting numerous inconsistencies regarding her injuries, substance abuse, and the fact that her children had been removed from her care by Family and Children's Services in 2011 for reasons unrelated to the accident.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the insurer's assessors and concluded the applicant was not the primary caregiver at the time of the accident, did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and did not incur the claimed caregiving expenses.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a preliminary order deeming him catastrophically impaired under Criterion 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, relying on a section 44 insurer examination by Dr. Waseem that concluded he met the 55% Whole Person Impairment threshold.

The respondent insurer opposed the motion, relying on conflicting section 44 assessments and an executive summary that concluded the applicant's wheelchair dependency was caused by pre-existing diabetes complications rather than the accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request, holding that an insurer is not bound by the opinion of a single section 44 assessor and that a full hearing was required to weigh the complex medical evidence regarding causation.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to attend a section 44 psychiatric examination before proceeding with the application.

The defendants brought a motion for leave under s. 12 of the Evidence Act to call more than three expert witnesses, specifically seeking to file a report from a second physiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis that the second physiatrist would provide redundant evidence identical to that of the defendants' first physiatrist.

The court denied leave, finding that calling multiple experts with the same specialty incurs unnecessary expense and is not necessary to assist the trier of fact.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations.

The plaintiff did not dispute the right to the examinations but sought to impose several restrictive conditions via a court order, including prohibitions on audio/video recording, questionnaires, and opinions on liability or credibility.

The court declined to impose a standard form order with the plaintiff's proposed terms, noting that many terms were either undisputed or overly broad.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the examinations, provided they could be arranged promptly, with reports complying with Rule 53.03(2.1).

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff in a motor vehicle personal injury action to undergo a further orthopaedic examination.

Applying the necessity, fairness and prejudice framework governing further defence medical examinations, the court held the evidentiary record did not establish a legitimate need for another assessment.

The defendants had already obtained a physiatry assessment addressing causation, impairment and prognosis, and failed to show a material change in condition after that defence assessment.

The motion was denied, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity scale.