Dr. Anna Prudovski

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft-tissue injuries, relying on hospital records and insurer examinations that showed normal range of motion and insignificant psychological symptoms.

As the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG, and the $3,500 limit was already exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued he sustained a psychological impairment and had pre-existing conditions that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unreliable and preferred the respondent's psychological assessments, which concluded there was no clinically significant accident-related psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition that prevented maximal recovery.

As the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought post-104 week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the complete inability test.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment or self-employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's pre-existing health issues and failure to address causation regarding a subsequent accident.

The medical evidence provided did not sufficiently address the complete inability test.

The application was dismissed.