Chaitanaya Ghai

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 sought removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain and psychological injury.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and medical/rehabilitation benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies between his reported impairments and his actual function, such as continuing to work in excavation and playing hockey.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant did not provide compelling evidence to justify removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy 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 he should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had pre-existing conditions, they had largely resolved prior to the accident and did not prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of chronic pain.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claim for further physiotherapy, along with claims for an award and interest, were dismissed.