Christina Kovacic

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG, and sought non-earner benefits (NEB) and funding for treatment plans.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical records reporting psychological concerns.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she had successfully continued her education and secured employment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied attendant care benefits for the initial period because the expenses were not incurred by the applicant's daughters.

However, the Tribunal granted attendant care benefits for a subsequent period, finding them reasonable and necessary, and deemed the expenses incurred because the insurer unreasonably withheld payment by relying on an insurer's examination without explaining why it preferred that report over contemporaneous medical evidence.

The Tribunal also approved a treatment plan for life skills training.

Due to the insurer's lack of transparency and unreasonable conduct in denying the attendant care benefits, the Tribunal ordered a special award of 35% under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, plus interest.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to physical and psychological injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence lacked specificity and was contradicted by inconsistent self-reporting and surveillance evidence showing him jet skiing and lifting weights.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's assessments, concluding the applicant failed to meet the stringent threshold for the benefit.

The applicant sought Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to physical and psychological impairments.

The respondent insurer denied the claim.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's impairments did not continuously prevent her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, relying on surveillance evidence showing her performing various daily tasks and the opinions of the respondent's assessors who examined her during the relevant period.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's occupational therapist's report because it was prepared long after the accident and following a second motor vehicle accident.

The application for NEBs, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her son resigned from his employment to provide the care.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the son actually provided the specific attendant care services recommended by the occupational therapist.

The Tribunal noted credibility issues with the son's bank statements and paystubs, and concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the services were incurred.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.