Valery Kleiman

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that his psychological impairments and concussion warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish accident-related impairments outside the MIG.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's expert reports, noting that a chiropractor diagnosed psychological conditions outside his scope of practice and the psychological report lacked contemporaneous medical support.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

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

The applicant claimed she suffered from a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a psychological condition, noting inconsistencies between her self-reporting to assessors and her treatment providers, and placing little weight on a psychological report of unknown authorship.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, subject to the MIG, and dismissed the application for the disputed treatment plan and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to non-earner benefits and various treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove her psychological impairments, physical injuries, or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed benefits or interest.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a fundamental psychological or chronic pain impairment that would remove him from the MIG.

Relying on insurer examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's distress was related to a loss of independence rather than accident-related psychological issues.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to several treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic services, as well as a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove their injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting inconsistencies between the applicant's chronic pain assessment, their own submissions, and their family physician's clinical notes.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.