Kelly Smale

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 for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing low back condition, psychological impairments, chronic pain, and a concussion.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments over the applicant's evidence, which lacked corroboration from the family doctor's clinical notes.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under s. 3(2)(f) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The sole issue was whether the applicant suffered a Class 4 (marked) impairment in the sphere of adaptation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ability to complete occupational therapy tasks, maintain independent activities of daily living, and sustain seasonal employment for five years post-accident demonstrated some useful functioning.

Preferring the respondent's psychiatric evidence, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered only a Class 3 (moderate) impairment in adaptation and dismissed the application.

The applicant was involved in a 2019 rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that her ongoing symptoms were attributable to a prior 2014 accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing chronic pain prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the rigorous test for a non-earner benefit, as she could not establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life caused by the 2019 accident rather than her pre-existing condition.

The application was dismissed.