Dr. Richard Tavares

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a bicycle-motor vehicle collision.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to establish that her physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she provided limited details regarding her pre- and post-accident activities.

The application for non-earner benefits, a psychological assessment, an award, and interest 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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's pre-screening report.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit because the applicant failed to identify the essential tasks of his employment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans and expenses were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his psychological injuries or insomnia warranted removal from the MIG, noting inconsistencies with treating physician records.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding insufficient evidence of the applicant's essential work tasks or how his injuries impaired his ability to perform them.

All claims for treatment plans, medication, and an award were dismissed.