Dr. Simon Rom

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a psychological assessment and physiotherapy services outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate psychological or physical impairments warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations which were consistent with the family physician's clinical notes.

As the injuries were deemed minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the proposed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her accident-related injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by failing to properly consider the medical evidence of her neurologist and chiropractor regarding her chronic pain.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the original Tribunal properly weighed the evidence, provided adequate reasons for rejecting the uncontradicted medical reports, and made no errors of law or fact in its application of the MIG.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and funding for psychological and chronic pain assessments.

The insurer terminated IRBs after six months and denied the assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks for the first 104 weeks, nor a complete inability to engage in employment thereafter, relying on surveillance evidence showing him working and medical reports indicating symptom magnification.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant's injuries were minor, dismissing the claims for the assessments.