Madiha Qurashi

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans and a non-earner benefit, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

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

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, but denied a treatment plan for psychological services.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was barred because the applicant failed to submit an Election of Benefits form (OCF-10).

A claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed.

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

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding with his claims for non-earner benefits and a chronic pain assessment because he failed to attend multiple insurer's examinations (IEs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to attend the scheduled IEs without a reasonable excuse and that the respondent was prejudiced by the non-attendance.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to allow the hearing to proceed.

The applicant's claims were barred, and he withdrew the remaining issues, resulting in the closure of the file.

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

A written hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to file submissions.

The applicant's counsel advised of a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and requested to be removed from the record.

The applicant subsequently advised the Tribunal that he did not want to be contacted again.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as the applicant failed to meet his onus to prove entitlement to the benefits, and ordered the removal of his counsel from the record.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that precluded recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychiatric and physiatry evidence, concluding the applicant did not suffer from an accident-related psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing physical and psychological conditions.

She also sought a non-earner benefit and funding for various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions were exacerbated by the accident or prevented her from achieving maximum medical recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, finding the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life compared to her pre-accident activities.

Consequently, the proposed treatment plans outside the MIG were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.