Anna Truong

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit and the cost of a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an articling student, noting contradictions in his evidence and a lack of supporting medical documentation.

The adjudicator also denied the psychological assessment, accepting the respondent's expert evidence that the applicant did not suffer from a clinically significant, accident-related psychological impairment.

Both parties' requests for costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a rehabilitation benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator excluded late-filed medical reports submitted by the applicant in reply, finding their admission would prejudice the respondent.

Applying the Heath test, the adjudicator found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidence showed she continued to perform most of her pre-accident caregiving and household activities.

The claim for the rehabilitation benefit was dismissed for lack of evidence that it was reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest, costs, and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically requesting a neuropsychological assessment and chiropractic treatment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 statutory limit had been exhausted.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing medical condition that would prevent her from achieving maximal recovery under the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

The Applicant sought payment for various home repairs, cleaning services, and the cost difference for a dishwasher as rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that home repairs can qualify as 'home modifications' under section 16(3)(i) if they serve a rehabilitative purpose.

The Tribunal ordered payment for the repair of a basement step, installation of a handrail, and repair of loose tiles, as these addressed hazards exacerbated by the Applicant's accident-related impairments.

Claims for cleaning services, powder room repairs, and the dishwasher cost difference were dismissed.