Ms. Sarvin Sabet Ghadam

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.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to several treatment plans beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological and chronic pain assessments unpersuasive, noting they relied heavily on self-reporting and conflicted with other medical evidence showing only soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG, and dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans and interest.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for psychological and physical therapy services 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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to demonstrate that his physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's evidence, noting a lack of objective findings and symptom magnification.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.