F. Pariman

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient, preferring the respondent's psychological assessments which found only subclinical symptoms.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain.

The application was dismissed, with the applicant remaining subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

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

The respondent determined the applicant sustained a minor injury, subjecting her to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit, and denied her claims for non-earner benefits and certain treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft-tissue injuries and that her pre-existing chronic pain and psychological issues were not materially exacerbated by the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which incorporated a review of pre-accident medical records, over the applicant's experts who relied solely on self-reporting.

The application was dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG or that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.