Brittany K. Tinslay

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for medical treatments, transportation, and damaged clothing following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that the physical treatment goals were not being met and preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

Claims for transportation and clothing were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

Due to conflicting information regarding his employment status, the insurer requested an election of benefits.

The applicant elected to receive income replacement benefits (IRBs).

After the insurer denied the IRBs, the applicant attempted to re-elect to receive non-earner benefits (NEBs).

The Tribunal held that under section 35(3) of the Schedule, an election is final and can only be changed if the applicant is determined to have sustained a catastrophic impairment.

As there was no catastrophic impairment, the applicant was not entitled to re-elect NEBs.