Saloumeh Baghbani

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to consider psychological evidence from Dr. Lotfalizadeh.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration request, acknowledging the error of failing to address the psychological report.

However, upon reviewing the report, the adjudicator found it insufficient to establish that the applicant's psychological injuries were caused by the accident or warranted removal from the MIG.

The original decision was varied to include this analysis, but the ultimate dismissal of the application remained unchanged.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for two chiropractic treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as the medical evidence, including the insurer's independent medical examinations, indicated the applicant's ongoing pain was related to pre-existing conditions rather than the subject accident.

The application was dismissed and no interest was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed his psychological injuries and chronic neck and shoulder pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient contemporaneous medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting the applicant's primary complaints were treated conservatively by his family doctor.

The application for a $2,951.33 chiropractic treatment plan was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary, and the MIG limits had already been exhausted.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought entitlement to a chronic pain program and physiotherapy services under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

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

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's section 44 assessments, which concluded the applicant had sustained soft tissue injuries, reached maximum medical improvement, and did not meet the criteria for a chronic pain disorder.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently denied.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for three treatment plans (chiropractic, physiotherapy, and aquatherapy) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a causal link between the accident and her ongoing complaints, noting that her pre-existing conditions were similar to her post-accident complaints and that objective medical evidence did not support an accident-related impairment.

The application was dismissed and no interest was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to psychological assessments and treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient, preferring the respondent's psychological assessments which found only subclinical symptoms.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain.

The application was dismissed, with the applicant remaining subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain assessment in the amount of $2,460.00.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan based on an insurer's examination report which concluded the applicant suffered only minor soft tissue injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the insurer's medical report failed to adequately consider the clinical notes and records of the applicant's family physicians, which included a chronic pain diagnosis.

Relying on the applicant's psychological assessments and the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain, the Tribunal concluded the chronic pain assessment was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the assessment and interest on the overdue payment, but dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under section 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer's conduct did not meet the threshold of being excessive or imprudent.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefit, arguing the applicant's post-accident condition was not significantly different from his pre-accident state due to extensive pre-existing injuries.

The Tribunal applied the Heath test and found that the accident exacerbated the applicant's chronic pain and mobility issues, resulting in a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal gave limited weight to the insurer's s. 44 assessors because they failed to review the applicant's medical records.

The applicant was awarded the NEB with interest.

The applicant sought attendant care and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove he incurred the claimed attendant care expenses.

The applicant did not establish that his brother suffered an economic loss to provide care, nor did he provide sufficient details regarding professional care services.

The claims for medical benefits were also dismissed, as the insurer had already paid the incurred amounts for one treatment plan and no expenses had yet been incurred for the partially approved second plan.

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

The respondent initially placed the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline but later removed him.

The Tribunal found that proposed chiropractic treatments were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and past treatments provided little relief.

However, the Tribunal approved a chronic pain assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary because the applicant met the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain syndrome and had been diagnosed with chronic pain by multiple practitioners.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.