Ms. Faye Perreras

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) and was entitled to post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the CAT threshold under Criterion 7, as her evidence failed to transparently apply the AMA Guides' methodology and improperly double-counted impairments, whereas the respondent's assessments credibly established a 15% Whole Person Impairment.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet Criterion 8, preferring the respondent's functional observations showing independence in daily activities over the applicant's self-reported limitations.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for post-104-week IRBs, concluding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in reasonably suited employment, given evidence of ongoing functional capacity and post-accident earnings.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and did not result in functional impairment consistent with chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no evidence of psychological impairment, over the applicant's assessment.

Consequently, the applicant was not removed from the MIG, and the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were dismissed.