Dr. Dan Shlepakov

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

The adjudicator found the applicant's reporting of pain and functional limitations to various assessors and his family doctor was inconsistent, failing to establish chronic pain with functional impairment.

The applicant also failed to provide pre-accident medical evidence of a pre-existing condition.

Finally, the adjudicator preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no psychological condition that would remove him from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that her pre-existing psychological conditions, chronic pain, and accident-related psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish that her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG, or that she suffered from chronic pain or accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

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

The applicant argued that he suffered from post-concussive syndrome, psychological impairments, and chronic pain, which should remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support these diagnoses, noting that diagnosing psychological conditions and chronic pain was outside the scope of his chiropractor's practice.

Relying on the respondent's expert reports, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

The application for treatment plans and interest was dismissed.