Sandra Driesel

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 6 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant relied on a revised assessment by an orthopedic surgeon, which incorporated a whole person impairment rating from a chiropractor.

The Tribunal found the chiropractor was not qualified to make a catastrophic impairment determination and gave little weight to the revised assessment.

Relying on the respondent's orthopedic assessment and surveillance evidence showing the applicant functioning without walking aids, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold.

The application was dismissed, and no award for unreasonable delay was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an accident involving an all-terrain vehicle.

The insurer denied benefits, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant was excluded from receiving income replacement benefits because he was operating an uninsured vehicle without a valid license.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for catastrophic impairment and other benefits, finding the applicant's self-reporting to medical assessors was unreliable and contradicted by video surveillance showing a higher level of functioning than reported.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $47,942.86 in statutory accident benefits paid to the respondent, alleging the motor vehicle accident was staged and the claim involved wilful misrepresentation.

The respondent did not appear at the hearing.

Relying on expert accident reconstruction evidence, the Tribunal found that the collision did not occur as reported and was likely staged.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent engaged in wilful misrepresentation and ordered her to repay the full amount of benefits received, plus interest.

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

At the outset of the hearing, the adjudicator denied the applicant's request for an adjournment, noting the significant delay, previous adjournments, and the new counsel's lack of preparation.

The hearing proceeded with the applicant self-represented after her counsel failed to appear.

The adjudicator found the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as she failed to prove a marked impairment in three of the four spheres of functioning under Criterion 8.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for post-104-week income replacement benefits and attendant care benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence of a complete inability to work and no evidence of incurred attendant care expenses.

As the applicant's non-catastrophic limits were exhausted, the claims for medical benefits and expenses were also dismissed.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to determine whether the applicant's slip and fall incident constituted an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant had loaded a clothes dryer onto a pickup truck and subsequently slipped on an icy road, causing the dryer to allegedly fall on him.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The Tribunal concluded that the icy road was an intervening cause and the vehicle was not the dominant feature of the injuries.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's inability to work was due to a COVID-19 layoff, not accident-related injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility due to surveillance evidence and inconsistent reporting regarding her employment termination.

Relying on the clinical notes of the applicant's family doctor, which indicated no accident-related impairments, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove entitlement to the IRB or that the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The medical evidence, including assessments from a physiatrist, psychiatrist, and occupational therapist, did not support the applicant's subjective reporting of his limitations.

The Tribunal also noted credibility concerns regarding the applicant's self-reporting.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident while working as an Uber driver.

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he was not entitled to an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove a psychological impairment, noting inconsistencies in his self-reporting and surveillance video showing him performing various physical tasks.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding no medical evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for further treatment plans and assessments were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental or behavioural impairment).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, as she did not demonstrate a marked impairment in at least three of the four spheres of functioning.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's claims for attendant care benefits, finding she had not incurred the expenses and did not require the care, as well as various treatment plans and assessments.

The application was dismissed.

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

She claimed psychological injuries triggered by viewing a video of the accident scene, which showed a house where she had previously experienced abuse.

The Tribunal found that viewing the video did not constitute an 'accident' under the Schedule, as it did not arise from the ordinary use or operation of an automobile.

Consequently, her psychological impairments were not accident-related.

The Tribunal also found her physical injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

Claims for income replacement benefits, psychological treatment plans, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The self-represented applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim for accident benefits for medical cannabis and awarded costs to the respondent.

The applicant filed the request form but failed to provide any submissions explaining how the decision met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had not met his burden to establish grounds for reconsideration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law or fact by incorrectly applying the 'but for' test for causation regarding her psychological impairments.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the correct legal test for causation was applied and that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof to show the accident was a necessary cause of her psychological impairments.

The adjudicator also found no error in the assessment of the applicant's impairments under the AMA Guides.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle while riding his bicycle and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under criteria 6 (brain injury) and 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant relied heavily on a revised incident report from a paramedic indicating a depressed Glasgow Coma Scale score, which contradicted the original reports showing a perfect score.

The Tribunal found the revised report lacked credibility and rejected the expert opinions relying upon it.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove he sustained a brain injury or a resulting mental and behavioural disorder, and dismissed the application for catastrophic impairment, an award, interest, and costs.

The self-represented applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of three separate motor vehicle accidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, as she did not submit any catastrophic impairment assessments or medical reports demonstrating that she met the criteria under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

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

At the hearing, the applicant requested to convert the proceeding to a written hearing, which was denied.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as abandoned, which was also denied.

Because the applicant failed to submit a hearing brief or provide any documentary evidence or witness testimony, the adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her onus to prove entitlement to the disputed benefits.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing or provide any submissions or evidence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Due to the lack of evidence, the applicant failed to meet his onus, and all claims for benefits were dismissed.

The Tribunal found the applicant's failure to communicate his intention to abandon the application to be unreasonable and awarded $500 in costs to the respondent.

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

After multiple adjournments, the applicant failed to attend the peremptory hearing and did not file any evidence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeded in her absence under section 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet her onus to prove entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties disputed the quantum of the IRB for the periods pre- and post-104 weeks.

Both parties submitted accounting reports, but the adjudicator found both reports flawed as neither correctly attributed the loss of self-employment income to the accident versus a separate fire at the applicant's rental property.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and failed to provide accurate evidence of the quantum owed, the application for IRBs, interest, and a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties agreed the applicant was entitled to IRBs for a specific period but disputed the quantum.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, who had self-employment income, failed to provide sufficient and reliable financial documentation to calculate the IRB quantum, presenting inconsistent tax and employment records.

Furthermore, the Tribunal upheld the insurer's suspension of benefits under section 33 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to the applicant's failure to provide requested financial information to the insurer's accountants.

The application was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant sought statutory accident benefits for medical cannabis and form completion expenses following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding no evidence that the cannabis treatment was recommended by a health care professional or related to the accident, and noting the applicant had fraudulently completed the forms himself.

The Tribunal awarded $2,500 in costs to the respondent insurer due to the applicant's bad faith conduct, including his repeated failure to attend insurer examinations and manipulation of evidence.