Dr. Cody Eriksen

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a psychological injury, specifically severe anxiety and depression, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's expert, whose report was found to be internally inconsistent.

The applicant was awarded $2,200.00 for a psychological assessment and interest on overdue benefits, but the claim for a special award was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including reports from a chiropractor and a psychological assessment, lacked weight and corroboration.

Relying on the respondent's insurer's examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a psychological impairment or meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.