Dr. N. Belyakova

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological injuries that would remove him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the psychological report submitted by the Applicant unpersuasive because it relied solely on self-reporting without reviewing medical records that indicated pre-existing psychiatric issues.

Preferring the comprehensive report of the respondent's psychologist, the Tribunal concluded the Applicant sustained only minor injuries.

Consequently, the Applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG funding limit and was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, assessments, or interest.

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

The respondent denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended that pre-existing psychological conditions and insomnia warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were minor and that he failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Furthermore, the Tribunal applied the 'but for' test and concluded the accident was not a necessary cause of the applicant's psychological issues.

The application was dismissed, and claims for a psychological assessment, chiropractic services, an award, and interest were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied various treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found significant credibility issues with the applicant, noting inconsistencies between his self-reporting, tax returns, and surveillance evidence.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, who found no objective evidence of radiculopathy, psychological impairment, chronic pain, or concussion.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, which had been exhausted.

All claims for benefits, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured while riding a public bus and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, catastrophic impairment assessments, and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, dismissing the claim for non-earner benefits.

However, given the applicant's significant pre-existing conditions and accident-related physical and psychological injuries, the Tribunal found the catastrophic impairment assessments reasonable and necessary, excluding a file review fee.

The Tribunal also approved a neurological assessment and a psychological treatment plan, while dismissing the remaining treatment plans.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for psychological and chiropractic treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain syndrome, and an adjustment disorder warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support diagnoses of chronic pain or a psychological injury that would preclude recovery within the MIG, noting the applicant's return to full-time work.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor and dismissed the claims for treatment plans and interest.