Yalda Aslamzada

The applicant sought medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits and requested an insurer's examination, which the applicant failed to attend.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to attend the required examination and provided no explanation for her non-attendance.

Consequently, pursuant to section 55(1)2 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the applicant was precluded from proceeding with her application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and medical benefits for physiotherapy and psychological services.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit as he failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal determined the applicant's psychological impairments, including a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, exceeded the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal awarded funding for the disputed physiotherapy and psychological counselling services, but denied the request for a psychological assessment as duplicative.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement from her soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's self-reports of chronic pain were not compelling and that the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed and no benefits or interest were awarded.

The moving party, a minor who was injured in a collision between his bicycle and the responding party's motor vehicle, sought court approval of a $195,000 tort settlement under Rule 7.08.

The court previously rejected the motion due to inadequate materials and directed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to review the proposed settlement.

After receiving the OCL's report, which highlighted ongoing evidentiary deficiencies and issues with the contingency fee agreement, the court again declined to approve the settlement.

The court ordered the moving party's counsel to provide further detailed evidence addressing twelve specific concerns before the settlement could be reconsidered.

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

The insurer denied a treatment plan for psychological services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for psychological services, preferring the insurer's psychological assessment which found no objective evidence of a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The claim for interest was also dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains, and his pre-existing age-related conditions did not preclude recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of accident-related chronic pain causing functional impairment or psychological impairment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued her physical injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and she failed to provide a medical diagnosis of chronic pain.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no clinically significant accident-related psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were found not reasonable and necessary.