3 total
Applicant's injuries deemed minor and subject to the MIG limit due to lack of objective evidence of functional impairment.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her chronic pain, physical injuries, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional limitations, noting she did not meet the AMA Guides criteria and continued to work full-time.
The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical and psychological experts, who found no objective evidence of non-minor physical or psychological impairments and noted symptom over-reporting.
The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, ordering that any remaining funds within that limit be payable for incurred treatments, with interest.
The court ordered the claimant to attend defence medical examinations despite his anxiety and past scheduling mishaps to ensure trial fairness.
The defendant brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Rafik Yasso, to undergo independent medical examinations (IMEs) by a neuropsychologist and a physiatrist.
The plaintiff opposed, citing past negative experiences with IME scheduling and the triggering of his anxiety/PTSD.
The court found that the defendant had a procedural and substantive entitlement to these examinations.
Despite the plaintiff's past difficulties, the court determined there was no compelling reason preventing his participation and that the prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial without responding medical evidence outweighed the plaintiff's inconvenience.
The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the IMEs, with no costs awarded due to shared responsibility for the difficulties.
Application for accident benefits dismissed as the self-represented applicant failed to present any supporting evidence.
The self-represented applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, and various treatment plans.
At the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the application as abandoned, which the Tribunal denied because the applicant attended.
The applicant requested an adjournment to obtain legal representation and for health reasons, which was also denied due to a lack of supporting evidence and failure to take timely steps.
As the applicant presented no evidence or witnesses to support his substantive claims, the Tribunal found he failed to meet his burden of proof and dismissed the application for benefits.
