Clive Forbes

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for 104 weeks.

The insurer terminated the benefits at the 104-week mark, arguing the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The Tribunal reviewed the medical evidence, including reports from orthopedic surgeons, a psychologist, and a vocational assessor, and found that the applicant's physical and psychological impairments did not meet the post-104-week IRB test.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was payable.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain causing functional impairment or of a psychological impairment, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical records supporting these claims.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was payable.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation due to a mental or behavioural disorder following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a Class 4 (Marked) impairment in three of the four domains under the AMA Guides.

The evidence indicated that many of the applicant's functional limitations, including social withdrawal and learning difficulties, pre-dated the accident.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and the non-catastrophic medical and rehabilitation limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans, a section 10 award, and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain medical 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 no compelling medical evidence that pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome or a psychological diagnosis.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits were exhausted, the application for additional medical benefits, interest, and a Regulation 664 award was dismissed.