Dr. Sadeghi

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various psychological and physical treatment plans.

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 was exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to discharge his burden to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological expert over the applicant's expert, noting the applicant's expert failed to address contradictory medical records.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were not payable.

The applicant sought entitlement to pre-104 and post-104 Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer terminated the IRBs based on multidisciplinary assessments indicating the applicant could return to her pre-accident employment as an Uber driver.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to contradict the respondent's assessors, who concluded there were no ongoing objective musculoskeletal or neurological impairments caused by the accident.

Furthermore, the applicant's own psychological records did not support a diagnosis of PTSD or a driving phobia.

The adjudicator also noted the applicant received CERB and CRB during the disputed period and successfully completed education to become a medical esthetician.

The application was dismissed.