Dr. Sivasubramaniam

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and medical benefits for psychological services.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that a prior Tribunal decision had already determined this issue.

The Tribunal found that the MIG issue was res judicata, as it had been fully adjudicated in a previous hearing between the same parties.

Regarding the non-earner benefits, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's medical evidence over the applicant's self-reporting and expert opinions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the MIG issue was res judicata due to a prior Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal agreed that the MIG issue was res judicata, as it had been fully determined in a previous hearing between the same parties.

Consequently, the claims for medical benefits and examinations were dismissed because the MIG limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical evidence indicated she could perform many pre-accident activities.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.