Ms. Aghamohseni

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) and the termination of her income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's experts, noting that the applicant's expert reports were either uncorroborated by contemporaneous medical records or based on limited reviews.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to ongoing IRBs, as she did not demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a machine operator, particularly given her subsequent employment at a fast-food restaurant involving similar physical demands.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain with a functional impairment and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from either condition, noting his family doctor and psychiatrist consistently attributed his anxiety to his daughter's health rather than the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, his claims for various treatment plans exceeding the funding limits, as well as claims for a special award and interest, were dismissed.