Stacy Yong

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found the applicant's psychological assessment unreliable due to inconsistencies in self-reporting and lack of clarity regarding the assessors' roles.

Preferring the respondent's psychological assessment, the adjudicator concluded the applicant did not suffer a psychological condition removing her from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claim for a psychological assessment and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing she should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological assessment unpersuasive, noting ambiguities about the supervising psychological associate's involvement and unexplained contradictions regarding the applicant's pre-existing mental health history.

As the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she sustained a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG, her claim for a psychological assessment and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and gave limited weight to the applicant's psychological assessment due to reliability issues and lack of contemporaneous medical records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove removal from the MIG or a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a chef.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and his return to full-time work.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which flagged symptom exaggeration, over the applicant's expert report.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans 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) and raised a preliminary issue that the application should be barred due to the applicant's failure to attend insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found the notice of examination was non-compliant, so the application was not barred.

However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, keeping him subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and the application for additional treatment plans and an award was dismissed.