Jennifer Mendelsohn

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing severe depression and anxiety were the primary causes of her impairments, and that her condition did not significantly worsen post-accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for catastrophic impairment, attendant care benefits, and disputed treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to post-104 income replacement benefits, attendant care, and various medical benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's key expert psychiatrist, who recanted his findings during cross-examination when confronted with evidence of the applicant's actual functional capabilities, including international travel and childcare.

Consequently, the applicant failed to prove she met the criteria for catastrophic impairment or that she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

As the non-catastrophic benefit limits were exhausted, all claims were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found her accident-related impairments did not warrant removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact regarding her lower back injury, treatment, and the interpretation of her family physician's letter.

The adjudicator found that while there were minor errors of fact in the original decision, they would not have changed the outcome.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing sciatica and edema warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG limits.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were not considered.