Minor Injury Status Determination: Civil Resolution Tribunal Ruling
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's injuries were assessed for minor injury status under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and Minor Injury Regulation.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tribunal found that thoracic outlet syndrome is not a minor injury because it is not included in the prescribed list of minor injuries under the IVA and MIR.
- The tribunal found that right shoulder calcific tendinopathy is not a minor injury because it is not included in the prescribed list of minor injuries.
- The tribunal found that cervical radiculopathy is not a minor injury because it is not included in the prescribed list of minor injuries.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's neck and upper torso strain is a minor injury because the medical evidence did not clearly establish that this injury, rather than the cervical radiculopathy, caused the impairment that limited her ability to work.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The respondent argued that the claimant's injuries were minor injuries, but the tribunal rejected this argument for the TOS, calcific tendinopathy, and cervical radiculopathy.
- The respondent argued that the claimant's work hours had not decreased, but the tribunal found the data did not completely undermine the claimant's claim that she reduced her hours.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the injuries were not minor injuries because they were not listed in the prescribed list of minor injuries and did not meet the criteria for minor injuries.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Insurance (Vehicle) Act, s. 101 and the Minor Injury Regulation, s. 2 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the injuries were not listed as minor injuries in the prescribed list and did not meet the criteria for minor injuries.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that if their injuries are not listed as minor injuries in the prescribed list, they may not be considered minor injuries.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The medical evidence and expert reports provided by the claimant's doctors mattered in the decision.