Corey Sax

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he had not suffered a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the adjudicator erred in her treatment of expert evidence, violated procedural fairness by questioning an expert, misapplied the temporal requirements for assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and used an overly restrictive causation test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, as the adjudicator properly applied a flexible approach to the timing of assessments and correctly considered impairments caused by the traumatic brain injury.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as a result of a minor traumatic brain injury from a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law regarding the temporal analysis of the GOS-E, by discrediting his neuropsychologist's report because an occupational therapist conducted the GOS-E interview, and by failing to weigh the respondent's occupational therapist's observations.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact.

The adjudicator affirmed that a flexible approach to the timing of the GOS-E is appropriate, that the GOS-E interview must be conducted by a physician or neuropsychologist, and that occupational therapists cannot opine on whether impairments are caused by a brain injury versus other injuries.

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

The central issue was whether the applicant's traumatic brain injury resulted in a Severe Disability or Lower Moderate Disability under the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E).

The Tribunal found that the GOS-E assessment must be conducted by a physician or neuropsychologist, not an occupational therapist, and must isolate the effects of the brain injury from other physical or psychological injuries.

Preferring the evidence of the respondent's neuropsychologist, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained only a mild traumatic brain injury and did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant, a self-employed truck driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits from the Insurer.

The Insurer argued that the $3,000 per month the Applicant received from a private disability policy (NAL Insurance) was deductible as an income continuation benefit plan.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant was 'employed' for the purposes of the Schedule and that the private disability benefits were calculated with reference to his income from employment.

Consequently, the private benefits were deductible, reducing the Applicant's income replacement benefit entitlement to $0.