Sevda Guliyeva

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer 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 demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that her physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors over the applicant's treating practitioners and psychological report.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The claim for IRBs was also dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied several treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic care.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft-tissue injuries and that there was insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

As the disputed treatment plans proposed treatment outside the MIG limits, they were denied.

The claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant argued her injuries were not minor, citing chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft-tissue sprains and strains.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove her impairments warranted treatment beyond the MIG.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic treatment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer initially denied the benefits under the Minor Injury Guideline, but later conceded the applicant's injuries were non-minor based on a psychological assessment.

The applicant argued that pre-existing lower back pain and chronic pain syndrome necessitated further chiropractic care.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence to support the treatment plans, noting that her own treating physicians recommended physiotherapy rather than chiropractic treatment.

The application for medical benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.