Dr. H. Khan

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing right shoulder and back conditions.

The Tribunal found that while a pre-existing shoulder condition was established, the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that it would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessor over the applicant's section 25 assessor, noting the latter's assessment occurred after a subsequent accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment within 104 weeks of the accident, nor a complete inability to engage in any employment thereafter.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary insurer examination reports over the applicant's expert reports, noting that the applicant's experts relied heavily on uncorroborated self-reporting and failed to address her pre-accident job duties.

The claim for the physiotherapy treatment plan, an award under Regulation 664, and interest were also dismissed.