Katayoun Noohi

The Applicant sought payment for four treatment plans for psychological services and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident, as well as an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to meet their onus to establish that the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as they provided no specific submissions or evidence addressing the disputed plans.

The claims for the treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that her pre-existing condition, chronic pain, and psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that her pre-existing condition precluded recovery within the MIG, did not meet the AMA criteria for chronic pain, and failed to establish a psychological injury caused by the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the remaining funds were insufficient, the claims for psychological assessments and physiotherapy were dismissed.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was also dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to physical and psychological impairments.

The insurer denied the claim based on multidisciplinary insurer's examinations indicating the applicant had resumed most pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal found the insurer's medical evidence more persuasive than the applicant's, noting the applicant's self-reporting to assessors contradicted his claims of complete inability.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's motion to exclude 2018 insurer's examinations, finding the insurer's request reasonable in light of new medical evidence provided by the applicant.

The application for non-earner benefits was dismissed.