Dr. Alvi

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle and sought various statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment under the Schedule, preferring the insurer's expert evidence that the applicant did not suffer a marked psychological impairment.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to non-earner benefits, as his physical injuries caused a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Claims for attendant care, housekeeping, and certain treatment plans were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary, though an occupational therapy assessment was approved.

The claim for a special award was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and cost of examinations under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claims, initially relying on the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limits, though it later conceded the applicant was removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the requested psychological services and driver reintegration assessment were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the contradictory reports of the insurer's expert.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, an orthopaedic assessment, and a functional abilities evaluation, finding insufficient objective evidence to support them and noting the applicant's own report that physical therapy was no longer helpful.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's reliance on its experts' reports was not unreasonable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) and medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a cleaner for the first 104 weeks, entitling her to IRB for that period.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited beyond the 104-week mark, as she had subsequently worked as a caregiver.

The claims for psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans were dismissed for lack of evidence proving they were reasonable and necessary.

A claim for a special award was also dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits based on independent medical examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The evidence indicated that the applicant's periods of unemployment were due to temporary layoffs rather than accident-related impairments, and she had actively sought and obtained other employment.

The application was dismissed.