3 total
Application for catastrophic impairment and income replacement benefits dismissed as applicant failed to meet statutory thresholds.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment (CAT) based on mental and behavioural disorders, and entitlement to a post-104-week income replacement benefit (IRB).
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant sustained psychological impairments from the accident, she did not meet the Criterion 8 threshold for CAT, as she demonstrated only moderate impairments across the four spheres of functioning.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, preferring the respondent's multi-disciplinary assessment.
The application was dismissed in its entirety.
Catastrophic impairment claim dismissed; applicant's evidence of post-accident psychological decline contradicted by pre-accident psychiatric records.
The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological injuries following a motor vehicle accident, along with payment for assessment costs.
The Tribunal found the applicant to be an unreliable historian, noting significant inconsistencies between her testimony and her pre-accident psychiatric records which documented pre-existing depression, poor memory, and suicidal thoughts.
The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's expert reports because they relied on her incomplete self-reporting.
The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove she suffered marked impairments in three domains of functioning as a result of the accident.
Applicant designated catastrophically impaired; respondent's expert evidence rejected for using outdated tests and acting as a 'detective'.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment.
The respondent denied the catastrophic designation, alleging the applicant was malingering, and denied treatment plans for chiropractic care and assessments.
The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts over the respondent's neuropsychologist, who used outdated tests and viewed her role as a 'detective'.
The Tribunal denied the chiropractic treatment plan as it was largely outside the scope of chiropractic practice.
The cost of a neuropsychological assessment was approved as reasonable and necessary, while a triage assessment was denied.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.