The claimant sought entitlement for weekly non-earner benefits and entitlement to one treatment plan for a psychological assessment. Adjudicator Lake found that the claimant was not entitled to the benefits in dispute. Adjudicator Lake noted that the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological impairment or from chronic pain syndrome which would take her outside of the MIG. Adjudicator Lake found that the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident. In determining whether the claimant was entitled to ongoing non-earner benefits, Adjudicator Lake compared her pre- and post-accident activities of daily living. Adjudicator Lake concluded that the claimant did not identify what period of time she engaged in her pre-accident activities or what pre-accident activities were important to her. In cross-examination, the claimant also confirmed that at least seven months post-accident she was able to grocery shop, cook and sweep, and she was able to drive for five months post-accident. Adjudicator Lake concluded that the claimant had not met her onus of establishing that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.
