Alex Elkin

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent argued the application was barred by res judicata and abuse of process due to a prior Tribunal decision denying post-104-week income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal rejected the preliminary objections, finding the applicant relied on new medical evidence.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant's impairments, including her psychological and chronic pain conditions, largely pre-dated the accident.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's expert evidence as flawed and concluded she did not suffer a marked impairment in three of four domains of function.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and deemed catastrophically impaired.

She sought attendant care benefits, which the respondent denied.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant required some attendant care services for feeding and hygiene, she was not entitled to payment because she failed to prove that the services were 'incurred' under s. 3(7) of the Schedule, as there was no evidence of economic loss by her husband or mother who provided the care.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding no evidence that the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed benefits.

The application was dismissed.