Dr. M. Abounaja

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to several treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic services, as well as a chronic pain assessment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove their injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting inconsistencies between the applicant's chronic pain assessment, their own submissions, and their family physician's clinical notes.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment as a shipping company president.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's medical evidence unpersuasive as it relied heavily on self-reporting, which was undermined by credibility issues and psychological testing suggesting he was feigning symptoms.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant suffered only soft-tissue injuries and no substantial inability to work.

Claims for post-104 IRBs, interest, and the respondent's request for costs were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident where he was allegedly struck as a pedestrian.

The insurer determined his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied further treatment plans and Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, rejecting his claims of chronic pain and psychological injuries due to inconsistent medical evidence and uncompelling expert reports.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding no credible link between the accident and the applicant's inability to work, as the medical evidence showed functional range of motion and no substantial impairment.

All claims were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits beyond the $3,500 limit, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended he suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments, and had pre-existing conditions warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish chronic pain or psychological impairment exceeding the MIG, noting inconsistencies and lack of objective evidence.

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence that pre-existing conditions would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The application for medical benefits and interest was dismissed.