Ludmilla Jarda

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to non-earner benefits beyond November 26, 2019, and to disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made an error of law in interpreting the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and sought to introduce new case law as new evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error of law and holding that new case law does not constitute new evidence under Rule 18.2(c).

The self-represented applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that dismissed his claim for accident benefits as time-barred under s. 32(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued he was not informed by the respondent that he was time-barred after spending time and money completing forms.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant failed to establish any jurisdictional error, breach of procedural fairness, error of law or fact, or new evidence under Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, breached procedural fairness, and made errors of law and fact by rejecting a diagnosis of chronic pain and preferring the respondent's medical evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction to weigh the evidence and determine the severity of the injuries.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was attempting to relitigate the original findings and failed to meet the high threshold for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

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

The respondent denied various benefits, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment in construction.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed chiropractic treatment plans were denied.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Because the applicant presented no evidence to support his claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans, he failed to meet his evidentiary burden.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit (NEB) and several treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to perform most of her pre-accident activities, albeit with some pain and modifications.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's assessors over the applicant's assessors, noting the latter failed to review medical records or diagnostic imaging.

The Tribunal also found the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, and the insurer's denial notices were compliant with the Schedule.

The applicant sought $19,097.00 for a multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessment following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries and had a significant pre-existing medical history.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide corroborating medical evidence to support the necessity of the assessments or justify their costs, particularly given the $2,000 cap per assessment under section 25(5)(a) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB), attendant care benefits (ACB), and various treatment plans following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7, concluding his combined physical and mental impairment rating was 40%.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, dismissing the claim for post-104-week IRB.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and had exhausted non-catastrophic limits, the claims for ACB and treatment plans were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged incident where she claimed her motorized wheelchair was struck by a vehicle in a crosswalk.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that no 'accident' occurred.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for an accident and found no objective evidence supporting a collision, noting conflicting accounts from the applicant and corroborating witness testimony that the applicant simply lost control of her wheelchair and fell.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove the incident arose out of the use or operation of an automobile.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

In a prior 2020 decision, the Tribunal determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant filed a second application seeking removal from the MIG and funding for a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found that the issue of the MIG was res judicata, as the applicant failed to provide fresh, new evidence that would conclusively impeach the original determination.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, which had been exhausted, and the claims for the assessment and interest were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that barred her claims for income replacement benefits and a psychological assessment due to limitation periods.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent to raise a limitation defence at the hearing and erred in law by not extending the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the applicant had a full opportunity to respond to the limitation defence and failed to request or provide grounds for a time extension.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger on a commercial bus.

He failed to notify the respondent insurer of his intention to apply for accident benefits within the seven-day time limit prescribed by section 32(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, waiting 19 months to do so.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a reasonable explanation for the initial 216-day delay, as ignorance of the law is not a reasonable explanation.

Consequently, the applicant was barred from proceeding with his application under section 55(1) of the Schedule, and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, rejecting claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also excluded late-produced medical records due to the applicant's failure to comply with a Case Conference Report and Order.

The application for benefits, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied his claim for ongoing Income Replacement Benefits (IRB).

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness, ignored new medical evidence, and erred in fact regarding the MIG and the IRB dispute period.

The adjudicator found no breach of procedural fairness and held that the new evidence could have been obtained prior to the hearing.

While the adjudicator agreed the Tribunal made a factual error regarding the dates in dispute for the IRB claim, upon reviewing the evidence for the corrected period (February 26, 2020 to April 23, 2023), the adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The reconsideration was allowed in part to correct the dates, but the claim for ongoing IRB was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain, but the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of functional limitations or psychological impairment to warrant removal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit, noting a lack of evidence demonstrating a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Finally, the Tribunal found the respondent provided sufficient medical reasons for denying the disputed treatment plans within the required timelines.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment including a traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, sought various statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a non-earner benefit for a limited period, as she demonstrated a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal also approved a treatment plan for psychological services, finding it reasonable and necessary given her ongoing psychological impairments.

However, claims for a rehabilitation support worker, occupational therapy, kinesiology, and life skills training were dismissed due to insufficient evidence or because similar previously approved funds remained unutilized.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer did not act in bad faith.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various treatment plans for chiropractic, psychological, and chronic pain services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the cost of personal protective equipment was not covered, the proposed hourly rate for a psychotherapist was not justified, and the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, concluding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain and that her ongoing knee issues were related to pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in June 2017 but did not submit an application for accident benefits (OCF-1) until May 2021.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis of the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to notify the respondent within the 7-day time limit prescribed by s. 32(1) of the Schedule and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the 1,418-day delay under s. 34.

The application for accident benefits was therefore time-barred and dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting her injuries were predominantly soft tissue in nature.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for Income Replacement Benefits (IRB), finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were denied, along with claims for interest and an award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing it was not reasonable and necessary and was related to a subsequent 2021 accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence of ongoing impairment from the 2018 accident and relying on an insurer's examination which concluded the injuries had healed.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.