Dr. Jinoos Jianfar

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her psychological injuries and chronic pain warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including psychiatric and chronic pain assessments, lacked corroboration from her family doctor's records and was internally inconsistent.

Preferring the respondent's psychological and physiatry assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a psychological injury or chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological injury caused by the accident that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical and psychological assessments.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a November 2018 motor vehicle accident where she was rear-ended in a parking lot.

The insurer denied a $2,200 treatment plan for a psychiatric and chronic pain assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence submitted by the applicant, including reports from various specialists, related to a prior, unrelated accident from February 2018 where she was struck as a cyclist or pedestrian.

Consequently, the applicant failed to meet her burden to prove her injuries from the subject accident warranted removal from the MIG or entitlement to the disputed treatment plan.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant sought removal from the MIG based on a partial shoulder tear, pre-existing conditions, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological issues.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support removal from the MIG on any of these grounds.

The applicant's expert reports were given less weight due to non-compliance with procedural rules and lack of functional impairment evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant remains within the MIG and is not entitled to the disputed treatment plans.