Nima Azizi

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision finding that her accident-related impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact by misapplying s. 18(2) of the Schedule regarding her pre-existing psychological condition and disregarding evidence of driving anxiety.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues and reweigh evidence already considered, which does not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and a pre-existing psychological impairment stemming from a prior workplace robbery.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain or that the pre-existing psychological condition would prevent maximum medical recovery within the MIG.

The application for benefits, interest, and an award was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits and raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding with her appeal because she failed to attend an insurer examination (IE) under section 44 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's notice requiring the IE was deficient because it failed to provide sufficient medical and other reasons for the denial and the need for the IE, as required by sections 38(8) and 44(5).

Consequently, the applicant was not barred from proceeding with her appeal.