Dr. Aladetoyinbo

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for occupational therapy, vocational assessments, case management, attendant care, and housekeeping.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and had returned to her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker.

The Tribunal found that the disputed treatment and assessment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments which confirmed the applicant's independence in daily activities and her return to work.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in February 2020 and subsequently involved in a second accident in December 2020.

He sought pre- and post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and approval for occupational therapy treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the first accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's impairments, which were exacerbated by the second accident.

Relying on the evidence of the applicant's treating family doctor, chiropractor, and occupational therapist, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident tasks as a courier driver, and a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal awarded the IRBs and approved the treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, but denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the insurer's denials were based on medical opinions and not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal evaluated her impairments under Criterion 7 (Whole Person Impairment) and Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal rejected several of the applicant's expert ratings due to methodological flaws and inconsistencies with surveillance footage, which showed the applicant performing strenuous tasks like shovelling snow and shopping independently.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment and dismissed her claims for attendant care, treatment plans, and a special award.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought a determination that her accident-related psychological impairments met the definition of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal reviewed expert assessments from both parties and found that while the applicant had a marked impairment in activities of daily living, she only had moderate impairments in concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

As the applicant did not demonstrate a marked impairment in three of the four spheres of functioning, she did not meet the catastrophic impairment threshold.

Consequently, her claims for various medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed because the non-catastrophic limits had been exhausted.

The applicant sought $14,750.81 for a catastrophic impairment assessment following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan and argued that the issue of the applicant's chronic pain was res judicata based on a prior Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal found that res judicata did not apply as the issues were different and the prior decision did not address the cost of a catastrophic assessment.

The Tribunal partially approved the treatment plan, finding the physiatry, psychological, and occupational therapy assessments reasonable and necessary, but denied the costs for clinic file reviews, transportation, and interpretation.

The applicant was awarded $8,400.00 plus interest, but the claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact in weighing expert evidence regarding activities of daily living and concentration, persistence, and pace.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no misapprehension of the legal tests, no failure to address deficiencies in the respondent's evidence, and no error in the weighing of the situational assessments and expert testimony.