Taivi Lobu

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2010 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to attendant care benefits of $6,000 per month, extensive home modifications, and alternative housing.

The Tribunal found the Applicant entitled to attendant care benefits up to $3,589.07 per month based on her mental and behavioural impairments, but noted no expenses had been incurred to date.

The claims for home modifications and alternative housing were dismissed, as the Applicant's physical impairments did not warrant them and her primary challenges were related to disorganization and clutter.

The Tribunal also found the housing assessment was subject to the $2,000 funding limit.

The Applicant was awarded $1,000 in costs due to the Respondent's failure to provide a timely copy of the hearing transcript and for exceeding submission page limits.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limits, as he failed to prove that his pre-existing conditions or degenerative changes prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

However, the Tribunal approved a $917.88 physiotherapy treatment plan as reasonable and necessary, payable subject to available MIG funds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's motions for an additional hearing day, recusal of the panel for bias, and the introduction of new evidence post-hearing.

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

The respondent initially paid benefits based on reported employment but terminated them after an insurer's examination and due to outstanding information regarding other alleged employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence regarding his pre- and post-accident income, including tax returns and banking records, was inconsistent, unverified, and incomplete.

Preferring the evidence of the respondent's forensic accountant, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to meet his onus to provide reliable information upon which an income replacement benefit could be calculated.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, alleging she was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a collision.

The respondent denied the claim and requested corroborating evidence, which the applicant failed to provide despite a production order.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the adjudicator found the applicant's testimony unreliable and uncorroborated.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that an accident occurred.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline due to a psychological impairment, entitling her to an in-home assessment.

However, claims for a chronic pain assessment, physiatry assessment, and physiotherapy were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, largely due to a lack of objective medical evidence and failure to produce pre-accident records.

A claim for the balance of a psychological treatment plan was also dismissed because the provider was a psychotherapist, not a psychologist, and the insurer's lower hourly rate was deemed reasonable.

Claims for an award and costs were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended that she suffered from accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment that would remove her from the MIG.

As the disputed treatment plans were submitted on the basis that the injuries were outside the MIG, they were not payable.

The application was dismissed.