Ludmilla Jarda

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 and entitlement to post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRB).

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired, accepting expert evidence that she suffered marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence, and pace, and adaptation due to accident-related mental and behavioural disorders.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for IRB, finding the applicant failed to tender opinion evidence challenging the respondent's vocational and medical assessments that she could engage in suitable alternative employment.

A claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was also dismissed due to the applicant's failure to provide required particulars.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing neck fracture, chronic pain, and psychological impairment, and also claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG, and lacked objective evidence of accident-related chronic pain or psychological impairment.

Relying on the respondent's independent medical examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for attendant care benefits for basic supervisory care and medication assistance.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made an error of fact by not allotting time for these needs.

The adjudicator found that the applicant was attempting to relitigate her claim and had not established that the Tribunal made an error of fact.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after injuring his right leg while being placed in the back seat of a police vehicle.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' and that the applicant was statute-barred for providing late notice.

The Tribunal found that the incident met the definition of an accident, as being a seated passenger in a police vehicle is an ordinary use, and the vehicle's use was the dominant feature of the injury, which ultimately led to a below-the-knee amputation.

The Tribunal also found the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the late notice due to his severe medical complications and lack of sophistication.

The applicant was awarded $2,200.00 for an orthopaedic assessment.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was barred from pursuing the non-earner benefit and several treatment plans because she failed to dispute the denials within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

The applicant was also barred from pursuing one treatment plan for failing to attend a s. 44 insurer examination.

The remaining treatment plans were dismissed as the applicant failed to provide compelling, contemporaneous medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) as a result of a motor vehicle accident, as well as payment for the unapproved balance of a catastrophic assessment treatment plan.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion arguing the claim was barred by res judicata due to a prior Tribunal decision denying non-earner benefits.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding the prior decision did not rule on psychological impairments.

On the merits, the adjudicator found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, preferring the respondent's psychiatric evidence that the applicant's impairments were pre-existing from a 2019 accident and that she had returned to her premorbid baseline.

Surveillance evidence and the applicant's ongoing activities, including attending college and travelling, contradicted claims of marked impairment.

The claim for the unapproved treatment plan balance was also dismissed as the applicant failed to justify costs exceeding the statutory maximums.

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

The respondent denied entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and partially denied treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment and psychological services.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to an IRB for a limited period (March 1, 2023, to November 2, 2023) because she failed to submit an OCF-3 until nearly 124 weeks post-accident, barring her claim for the period prior to submission.

The Tribunal also awarded small unapproved balances for psychological services, finding the requested higher hourly rates for unregulated providers were not justified.

The Tribunal ordered a 35% special award against the respondent for unreasonably withholding the IRB after the OCF-3 was submitted, noting the respondent's failure to respond within the required 10 business days and its withholding of adjuster log notes.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and numerous treatment and assessment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, relying on the respondent's medical assessments which found no residual physical or neurological impairments preventing his return to work.

The adjudicator also denied all disputed treatment plans, finding that several were not entered into evidence, while others included unpayable expenses such as personal protective equipment (PPE) and unauthorized transportation costs.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents in 2013 and 2014, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a marked or extreme impairment in any of the four functional domains.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, noting that the applicant's experts failed to adequately consider his extensive pre-existing medical and psychiatric conditions, including chronic pain, depression, and strokes.

The Tribunal also found that the disputed treatment plans for a functional ability evaluation and an attendant care assessment were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant's ongoing impairments were primarily attributable to the progression of his pre-accident conditions.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The self-represented applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the Tribunal denied the applicant's oral request for an adjournment, finding she had not taken reasonable steps to secure new counsel.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the application as abandoned.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments over the applicant's oral testimony and unsupported claims.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $100 in costs for her unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with Tribunal orders.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and denied his claims for income replacement benefits and treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness, made errors of law and fact, and failed to properly consider evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no errors of law or fact, and no new evidence that would justify a reconsideration.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, claiming a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 due to mental and behavioural disorders following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's self-reporting was inconsistent and unreliable.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not suffer from a marked impairment in three functional domains (activities of daily living, social functioning, and adaptation) and therefore did not meet the definition of a catastrophic impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who was wheelchair-bound prior to the accident, was struck by a truck and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's injuries were soft tissue in nature and that she failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's medical assessors, concluding that the applicant's ongoing functional limitations were largely attributable to a significant post-accident weight gain and pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

Claims for physiotherapy, psychological services, occupational therapy, and an award for unreasonably withheld benefits were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 (55% whole person impairment).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed competing medical assessments and preferred the respondent's experts, finding the applicant's combined physical and psychological impairments resulted in a 26% whole person impairment, falling short of the 55% threshold.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a functional abilities evaluation, finding it was not reasonable and necessary, and consequently denied claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2018 motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan, an award, and interest.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she met the criteria for catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6 (physical), 7 (combined physical and psychological), or 8 (mental/behavioural).

The adjudicator rejected the applicant's expert evidence, finding it inconsistent with the AMA Guides and unsupported by objective medical evidence.

The claim for the physiotherapy treatment plan was also dismissed as the applicant failed to include the plan in evidence or prove it was reasonable and necessary.

Consequently, the claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that her incident did not constitute an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact regarding the mechanics of the collision and the assessment of witness testimony.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate the original findings and failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and two treatment plans for chronic pain and attendant care assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove entitlement to the IRB and that his application for the benefit was incomplete due to his failure to submit an Election of Income Replacement, Non-Earner or Caregiver Benefit form (OCF-10).

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on the unrefuted opinion of the respondent's physiatrist that the applicant's injuries were soft tissue in nature.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to submit a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) within the required timeframe and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, barring entitlement for the initial period.

For the subsequent period, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as the evidence showed he could still perform the majority of his pre-accident activities, and his impairments were largely attributable to prior accidents.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for chiropractic, massage, and chronic pain treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction and made errors of law and fact by determining she did not suffer from chronic pain and that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it had jurisdiction to assess the severity of the injuries and the reasonableness of the treatment plans, and that it made no error in weighing the medical evidence to conclude the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) and entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, placing limited weight on her experts due to her inconsistent self-reporting and failure to account for intervening events.

The Tribunal denied the disputed treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, psychological services, and bathroom renovations, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal granted the cost of prescribed cannabis oil, noting that a treatment plan was not required for expenses under $250, and ordered a 35% award against the respondent for unreasonably withholding payment for the cannabis oil.