Sabrina Simmons

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological condition, relying on a psychological assessment conducted via video call.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's in-person psychological assessment, which found no psychological condition, noting it included validity testing and was conducted directly by a psychologist.

The Tribunal held the applicant to the MIG limit and dismissed the claims for disputed treatment plans and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that his psychological impairments and concussion warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish accident-related impairments outside the MIG.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's expert reports, noting that a chiropractor diagnosed psychological conditions outside his scope of practice and the psychological report lacked contemporaneous medical support.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological injuries (driving anxiety) and physical injuries (chronic pain).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof for removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no psychological injury, over the applicant's assessment, noting methodological weaknesses in the latter.

Furthermore, the applicant provided insufficient evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans and claims for interest were dismissed.

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 claimed she suffered from a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a psychological condition, noting inconsistencies between her self-reporting to assessors and her treatment providers, and placing little weight on a psychological report of unknown authorship.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, subject to the MIG, and dismissed the application for the disputed treatment plan and interest.

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 she should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unreliable as it lacked validity testing and was based on self-reporting.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found symptom magnification and no psychological disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit, dismissing the claims for treatment plans and interest.

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

The respondent denied funding for several psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found no compelling medical evidence that the applicant's physical soft tissue injuries or alleged psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, noting the applicant's assessor was not qualified to provide a psychological diagnosis.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer held that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied four treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services because the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the insurer's medical examinations over the applicant's evidence.

The application was dismissed, and no benefits or interest were awarded.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to several treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic services, as well as a chronic pain assessment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove their injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting inconsistencies between the applicant's chronic pain assessment, their own submissions, and their family physician's clinical notes.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued he sustained a psychological impairment and had pre-existing conditions that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unreliable and preferred the respondent's psychological assessments, which concluded there was no clinically significant accident-related psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition that prevented maximal recovery.

As the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG.

As the injuries were predominantly minor, the applicant was subject to the $3,500 treatment limit, and the application for additional treatment plans and an award was dismissed.