Dr. Valery Kleinman

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 argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unreliable as it lacked validity testing and was based on self-reporting.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found symptom magnification and no psychological disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit, dismissing the claims for treatment plans and interest.

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, psychological injuries, and a pre-existing condition of pregnancy.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a diagnosis of chronic pain or a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's comprehensive psychological assessment over the applicant's provisional screening report.

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence that the applicant's pregnancy prevented maximal recovery under the MIG.

The application was dismissed.