Dr. Moddell

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by basing its decision solely on credibility, violated procedural fairness by not holding an oral hearing, and made errors of fact regarding his reported activities.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal properly weighed the totality of the medical and surveillance evidence, the applicant had consented to a written hearing and had opportunities to respond to the surveillance evidence, and the Tribunal made no significant errors of fact.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's self-reports to his medical assessors were unreliable due to significant credibility issues raised by video surveillance and social media evidence, which showed him engaging in activities inconsistent with his reported limitations.

Consequently, the Tribunal placed minimal weight on the applicant's medical reports and concluded that he failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The application was dismissed.