Dr. Bain

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits, and funding for medical assessments.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to ongoing IRBs, as her post-concussion syndrome and chronic pain resulted in a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal also approved a neuropsychological assessment but denied a speech language pathology assessment, noting the applicant's post-accident public speaking engagements.

Claims for attendant care benefits, a special award, and costs were dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed a trial judge's decision finding she did not meet the threshold requirements under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff argued the trial judge committed palpable and overriding errors by failing to explain his preference for conflicting medical evidence and by omitting reference to the evidence of her chiropractor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review is palpable and overriding error, and finding no such error in the trial judge's careful review of the evidence.

The applicant sought payment for several medical benefits and assessments following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the proposed physiotherapy and laser spinal decompression treatments were reasonable and necessary, rejecting the insurer's argument that they were merely passive therapies.

The Tribunal also approved a psycho-vocational and functional abilities evaluation, capping the cost at the statutory limit of $2,000 per assessment, and allowed an in-home assessment for attendant care needs despite the 104-week mark having passed, as the applicant might be entitled to future benefits if deemed catastrophically impaired.