Viktoria Tolmatshov

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unpersuasive, noting a lack of corroboration in clinical records and preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which found no substantive psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, dismissing the claims for psychological treatment, assessment, and 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).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing knee and back conditions, as well as an accident-related psychological condition.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to establish that the pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG, noting a lack of contemporaneous accident-related complaints.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no clinically significant psychological impairment.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the disputed treatment plans were not analyzed.

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to an accident-related psychological injury.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG, placing little weight on her psychological reports due to lack of objective testing and inconsistencies.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various chiropractic and psychological treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a pre-existing condition, a psychological impairment, or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological and physical assessments, noting a lack of psychological symptoms in the treating practitioners' records and no evidence of functional impairment.

The application for the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award was dismissed.

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 argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain and that the evidence did not support a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and he remained subject to the MIG limit.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including reports from a chiropractor and a psychological assessment, lacked weight and corroboration.

Relying on the respondent's insurer's examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a psychological impairment or meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.