M. Lotfalizadeh

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied various treatment plans and income replacement benefits (IRBs), arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were minor, rejecting reports of psychological impairment and chronic pain due to inconsistencies and suspected malingering.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical examinations, concluding the applicant was subject to the $3,500 MIG limit and not entitled to the disputed medical benefits.

The claim for IRBs was also dismissed as the applicant failed to prove an inability to perform essential tasks and did not disclose post-accident income.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident where he was allegedly struck as a pedestrian.

The insurer determined his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied further treatment plans and Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, rejecting his claims of chronic pain and psychological injuries due to inconsistent medical evidence and uncompelling expert reports.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding no credible link between the accident and the applicant's inability to work, as the medical evidence showed functional range of motion and no substantial impairment.

All claims were dismissed.