The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) following a motor vehicle accident.
The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by disregarding his subjective evidence of psychological impairment, providing inadequate reasons, and demonstrating bias against subjective pain complaints.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT adequately explained its weighing of the evidence and that no error of law or procedural fairness violation occurred.
