Dr. S. Gabidulina

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a psychological impairment, giving little weight to his psychological assessment as it was unsupported by contemporaneous clinical history or psychometric testing.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome under the AMA Guides.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG, and his claims for treatment plans outside the MIG limit, as well as for interest and an award, were 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 claimed a psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG, relying on a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found the psychological assessment was not corroborated by the contemporaneous clinical notes of the applicant's family physician.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not prove an accident-related psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to medical benefits for chiropractic and psychological treatment, as well as income replacement benefits.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she was not substantially unable to perform her employment tasks.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer from an accident-related psychological injury or chronic pain condition, preferring the insurer's medical examinations over the applicant's expert.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury subject to the $3,500 funding limit and dismissed the claims for additional medical benefits, income replacement benefits, and interest.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the evidence of the respondent's experts over the applicant's experts.

Because the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG and the $3,500 limit had already been exhausted, the Tribunal concluded it was unnecessary to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the disputed treatment plans.

The application was dismissed.