Haciyeva Kamala

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her psychological impairments, pre-existing conditions, or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

Claims for non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits were dismissed as the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay $3,704.97 for assistive devices because the insurer's denial letter breached the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, triggering the payment consequences of s. 38(11).

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including medical benefits for physiotherapy, an occupational therapy assessment, assistive devices, and a non-earner benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ruled the applicant's late-filed evidence inadmissible.

On the merits, the Tribunal denied the claims for physiotherapy and the occupational therapy assessment, finding the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was also dismissed as the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for assistive devices in the amount of $3,459.95, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessor who specifically addressed her pain-related limitations.

The claim for an award under Regulation 664 was dismissed.