3 total
Insurer's request for reconsideration of catastrophic impairment designation dismissed; no errors of law or fact found.
The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant had sustained a catastrophic impairment with a 54% whole person impairment (rounded to 55%).
The respondent argued the Tribunal erred in its WPI ratings for leg disfigurement, sleep disorder, and a discretionary increase, alleging it relied on discredited expert evidence and ignored surveillance footage.
The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence, including the surveillance, and made no errors of law or fact in its impairment ratings.
The original catastrophic impairment designation was upheld.
Applicant deemed catastrophically impaired after whole person impairment rating of 54% rounded up to 55%.
The applicant, a bus driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident when a transport truck collided with her bus.
She applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The central issue was whether her injuries resulted in a 55% or more Whole Person Impairment (WPI) in accordance with the AMA Guides.
The adjudicator evaluated competing expert medical reports regarding the applicant's mental/behavioural disorders, lower extremity impairments, facial disfigurement, spinal issues, sleep disorder, and chronic pain.
After weighing the evidence and assigning WPI percentages for each category, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant sustained a 54% WPI.
Applying the rounding principles permitted by the AMA Guides, this met the 55% threshold.
The Tribunal declared the applicant catastrophically impaired.
Successful defendant awarded full requested partial indemnity costs of $16,311.32 following summary judgment motion.
Following a successful summary judgment motion where the court determined a farm tractor was not an 'automobile' for insurance coverage purposes, the successful defendant sought costs.
The plaintiffs argued the issue was unique and warranted litigation, suggesting a reduced costs award.
The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, noting the law was settled by binding appellate authority, and awarded the defendant its full requested costs of $16,311.32 on a partial indemnity basis.
