Dr. Zeeshan Waseem

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and several treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits and argued the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding due to non-attendance at insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not statute-barred because the notices of examination were non-compliant and she had a reasonable explanation for non-attendance.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the merits.

The applicant failed to prove she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 or 8, largely due to significant pre-existing physical and psychological conditions.

Consequently, she was not entitled to medical or attendant care benefits beyond the 260-week limit, nor did she prove entitlement to post-104-week income replacement benefits or the disputed treatment plans.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims.

The Tribunal considered procedural issues regarding late expert reports and submissions, ultimately admitting them to ensure procedural fairness.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the disputed physiotherapy, assistive devices, personal training, or psychological therapy, as she failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, or they were barred by the Schedule's timing provisions.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to a $2,200 psychological assessment, finding it was submitted within the five-year limitation period and supported by medical evidence.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB), interest, and an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as her injuries continuously prevented her from engaging in pre-accident childcare and housekeeping activities.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist over the insurer's section 44 assessors.

The applicant was awarded the NEB and interest, but the claim for a section 10 award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct did not rise to the level of being unreasonable.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments which were supported by objective evidence, including surveillance footage and employment records showing the applicant had returned to full-time work.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for the outstanding balance of a catastrophic impairment assessment plan, finding that clinical file reviews were subject to the $2,000 cap per assessment and that transportation expenses were not proven to exceed the 50-kilometre deductible.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable withholding of benefits were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought post-104 income replacement benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a low-speed motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical, psychological, and pain complaints did not render her completely unable to engage in employment for which she is reasonably suited, such as customer service or hairstyling.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors and contemporaneous medical records over the applicant's experts.

The treatment plan was denied as past similar treatments had not been effective.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented her from working.

The Tribunal reviewed conflicting medical assessments and found the applicant's presentation of pain and limitation to be inconsistent and lacking full effort.

Preferring the respondent's medical evidence, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The application for IRBs, interest, and a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRB), attendant care benefits (ACB), and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to an IRB for the pre-104 week period, as his accident-related low back pain caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as an electrician.

However, the Tribunal denied the post-104 week IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to perform less physically demanding work for which he was reasonably suited.

The claim for ACB was dismissed because the applicant provided no evidence that the services were incurred.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for an in-home attendant care assessment and physical therapy, but denied plans for an occupational therapy assessment and vestibular physiotherapy due to a lack of evidence connecting the symptoms to the accident.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue benefits but denied a special award.

The applicant sought payment for four treatment plans for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that while the accident caused the applicant's injuries and ongoing pain, the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

Medical evidence indicated that the applicant had achieved his goals of increased range of motion and strength, and that previous chiropractic treatments provided only temporary relief.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, psychological services, and occupational therapy assessments following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The adjudicator found that the applicant was precluded from claiming entitlement to two treatment plans submitted more than five years after the accident, pursuant to s. 20(1)(a) of the Schedule.

For the remaining plans, the adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, noting conflicting evidence regarding the applicant's recovery from a prior 2015 accident and subsequent workplace injuries.

The adjudicator also found the respondent's denial notices were compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $2,103.34 for a physiotherapy treatment plan under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting that previous treatments had not achieved their goals and the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was awarded.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy services following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examination assessors, who concluded that further facility-based physical treatment was unlikely to provide any additional therapeutic benefit for the applicant's left elbow injury and chronic pain.

As no benefits were payable, claims for interest and a section 10 award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries, including a partial shoulder tear and chronic pain, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the partial shoulder tear and soft tissue injuries fell within the MIG definition.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment, noting inconsistencies in her medical records and giving limited weight to her physiatry assessment.

The applicant was found to remain within the MIG and was awarded only the remaining balance of her $3,500 limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming $37,129.50 for vocational training, a mattress, and a massage chair, as well as $2,460 for a stairmaster.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatments and devices were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted a lack of medical evidence supporting the need for the expensive mattress and vocational training, which appeared aimed at improving the applicant's quality of work life rather than facilitating a return to pre-accident employment.

The claims for the massage chair and stairmaster were also denied as unnecessary.

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

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

The applicant contended that she suffered from accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment that would remove her from the MIG.

As the disputed treatment plans were submitted on the basis that the injuries were outside the MIG, they were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

This trial determined damages for the plaintiff, Katrina Pisani, who sustained injuries in a rear-end motor vehicle collision where liability was admitted by the defendant, Holly McDaniel.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff's injuries met the "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff's chronic pain, sleep disruption, fatigue, irritability, depression, and anxiety constituted permanent, serious, and important impairments, thereby meeting the threshold.

The court awarded general damages, past loss of income, loss of competitive advantage, past and future loss of housekeeping and home maintenance ability, and costs of future care.

The claim for out-of-pocket expenses was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.