Sandra Ramnaraine

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to alleged concussions, chronic pain, and psychological conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish an accident-related concussion, chronic pain with functional impairment, or a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical assessments, which aligned with contemporaneous medical records, over the applicant's self-reported symptoms.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not analyzed for reasonableness and necessity, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he suffered from chronic pain and a psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish functionally disabling pain, noting his active lifestyle and lack of objective medical evidence.

The Tribunal also afforded diminished weight to the applicant's psychological assessment due to its heavy reliance on self-reporting and inconsistency with objective scores.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, an award, or interest.

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

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

The applicant claimed a psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) and treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the burden of proving a psychological impairment or a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as an Uber driver.

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

The applicant sought post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 'complete inability' test for post-104-week IRBs, relying on insurer's examinations and surveillance evidence showing her performing work activities.

The Tribunal denied claims for chiropractic services, massage therapy, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claims for a psychological assessment and a driving reintegration assessment to address her vehicular anxiety, along with interest on those overdue amounts.

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 applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, a concussion, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer examinations over the applicant's medical reports.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a car accident.

While the defendant admitted fault for the accident, the trial proceeded on the issue of damages, including non-pecuniary loss, loss of income, and future care costs.

The court found the plaintiff's testimony regarding her symptoms and limitations to be not credible, noting inconsistencies and a willingness to exaggerate or understate symptoms based on her immediate goals.

Consequently, the expert opinions largely based on the plaintiff's self-reports were given little weight.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that her alleged injuries were caused or aggravated by the accident or that she met the statutory threshold for permanent serious impairment under the Insurance Act.

The action was dismissed.