Dr. Christopher Gallimore

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under both Criterion 6 (64% whole person impairment) and Criterion 2 (severe and permanent alteration of lower extremities with a SCIM score of 4).

The Tribunal awarded incurred attendant care benefits from October 2021 to March 2022 but denied ongoing attendant care benefits as the applicant failed to provide an updated Form 1 reflecting her current needs.

Claims for four specific treatment plans were dismissed as the applicant provided no evidence to support them.

Interest was awarded on all overdue payments.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a scapular fracture, pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and a concussion.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove any of these grounds on a balance of probabilities, noting inconsistencies in reporting and a lack of diagnoses from qualified medical practitioners.

The Tribunal held that diagnosing psychological impairments and concussions is outside the scope of practice for chiropractors and occupational therapists.

As the injuries were predominantly minor, the disputed treatment plans were not considered.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits and attendant care benefits due to insufficient evidence.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal evaluated the competing multidisciplinary assessments to determine if the applicant met the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7.

The Tribunal rejected several of the applicant's proposed impairment ratings, including those for the lumbar spine, headaches, mental status, and medication, finding them inconsistent with the AMA Guides and medical evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's combined whole person impairment was 45%, falling short of the catastrophic impairment threshold.

The application for benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied various treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

As the applicant had already exhausted the $3,500 MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought $1,966.30 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant did not submit any contemporaneous medical evidence to support the treatment plan, whereas the respondent provided insurer's examination reports from a physiatrist and an orthopaedic surgeon indicating no physical impairment requiring facility-based treatment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the injuries were pre-existing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the insurer complied with the notice requirements under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

Applying the 'but for' test, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's shoulder, neck, chest, and back pain pre-existed the accident and were not caused by it.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought Non-Earner Benefits (NEB) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the NEB, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly soft tissue injuries falling within the MIG.

Relying on Independent Medical Examinations and the applicant's family physician's clinical notes, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application for NEB and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a severe motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of her brother and severe injuries to her mother.

She applied for catastrophic impairment designation based on physical and psychological impairments, including chronic pain, PTSD, and depression.

The arbitrator found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment, meeting both the 55% whole person impairment threshold and the Class 4 marked impairment threshold for mental and behavioural disorders.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's psychological assessment, finding it ignored relevant medical history and evidence of significant functional limitations.

Claims for attendant care and housekeeping benefits were dismissed because the expenses were not 'incurred' as required by the Schedule, as no invoices were submitted and family members did not establish economic loss.

The applicant was awarded $1,440 for travel expenses and interest on overdue benefits, but the claim for a special award was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding that he was not catastrophically impaired and dismissing his claims for statutory accident benefits.

The appellant argued that the Arbitrator erred in relying on surveillance evidence and the respondent's medical experts rather than his own presentation at the hearing and his family's testimony.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the Arbitrator made no errors of law.

The Arbitrator was entitled to weigh the evidence, including surveillance videos showing the appellant engaging in complex activities that contradicted his family's testimony and his presentation to his own medical experts.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, housekeeping, and attendant care, following a 2003 motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer relied on extensive surveillance video taken over four years showing the Applicant driving on highways, running errands, and performing complex tasks, which starkly contradicted the Applicant's presentation to medical assessors and his family's testimony that he was severely cognitively and physically impaired.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant's medical evidence and family testimony unreliable due to the glaring inconsistencies with the objective surveillance evidence.

The Arbitrator preferred the Insurer's medical experts, concluded the Applicant was not catastrophically impaired, and dismissed all claims for benefits and a special award.