Dr. G.B. Fiati

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological impairments warranted treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were minor and the MIG limit was exhausted.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's comprehensive psychological assessment over the applicant's expert report, which relied heavily on self-reporting.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's internally inconsistent expert report.

As the applicant had exhausted the $3,500 limit, the claims for additional treatment plans, a disability certificate, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and sought statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment as a result of the second accident, primarily due to psychiatric impairments including major depressive disorder, which resulted in a marked impairment in work adaptation.

The claims for attendant care and housekeeping benefits were dismissed as statute-barred because the applicant failed to provide timely notice and an assessment of attendant care needs prior to mediation.

Various medical and rehabilitation benefits were found to be reasonable and necessary and were awarded.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer acted reasonably in adjudicating the complex claims.