Curtis Wong

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, sought attendant care benefits, assistive devices, and physiotherapy services under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Following left shoulder surgery, the applicant claimed $6,000 per month in attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to the maximum $6,000 per month for the immediate post-surgery period based on an occupational therapy assessment, but reduced the entitlement to $579.65 per month thereafter based on a subsequent insurer's examination.

The Tribunal partially approved a treatment plan for assistive devices, awarding costs related to an electric bed, but denied the balance due to insufficient medical evidence.

A treatment plan purportedly for physiotherapy was denied as it actually requested a mattress and bidet without supporting submissions.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the insurer acted reasonably in relying on independent medical assessments to adjust the claim.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought a determination that her accident-related psychological impairments met the definition of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal reviewed expert assessments from both parties and found that while the applicant had a marked impairment in activities of daily living, she only had moderate impairments in concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

As the applicant did not demonstrate a marked impairment in three of the four spheres of functioning, she did not meet the catastrophic impairment threshold.

Consequently, her claims for various medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed because the non-catastrophic limits had been exhausted.

Both the applicant and the respondent requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The respondent argued the adjudicator erred in law by not including language about post-accident income deductions in the income replacement benefit order.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and erred in law by admitting a medical report without the author being available for cross-examination, refusing to issue summonses, and failing to provide adequate reasons regarding catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law, fact, or breaches of procedural fairness that would have changed the outcome.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he did not meet the requirements for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to properly adjudicate the evidence, relied too heavily on expert reports, and failed to consider his impairments on a biopsychosocial basis.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact.

The Tribunal held that it had properly weighed the evidence, including the applicant's own expert who found only a moderate impairment in concentration, persistence, and pace, and that the reconsideration process is not an opportunity to reweigh evidence.