Dr. D. Ogilvie-Harris

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain with functional impairment and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's physiatrist over the applicant's orthopaedic surgeon, finding the latter's report relied entirely on self-reported questionnaires without a thorough physical examination or review of medical records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered soft-tissue injuries within the MIG and failed to prove chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence insufficient, giving no weight to a telephone-only orthopaedic assessment and negligible weight to a psychological assessment that contradicted its own psychometric testing.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG, dismissing the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and a special award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.

She applied for ongoing benefits, claiming she was substantially unable to perform her essential tasks as a homemaker due to a knee injury.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for ongoing benefits, finding that the medical evidence, surveillance video showing her performing tasks without apparent discomfort, and her history of non-compliance with treatment indicated she was no longer substantially disabled.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed, but the applicant was awarded her arbitration expenses.