Danielle Reich

The applicant sought attendant care benefits, an award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to $942.19 per month in attendant care benefits based on the occupational therapist's assessment of her needs for exercise supervision, bathing, and equipment maintenance.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for incurred attendant care shortfalls, interest, and a section 10 award, finding the insurer's reliance on the ratio method and its own assessments was reasonable.

The applicant was rear-ended in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the accident caused the applicant's psychological impairments.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's psychiatrist, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a marked impairment (Class 4) in three of four functional domains (Activities of Daily Living, Concentration, Persistence and Pace, and Adaptation).

The applicant was deemed catastrophically impaired.

However, claims for specific medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to provide the disputed treatment plans or prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant, a personal support worker, was injured while riding as a passenger on a bus that was struck by a car.

She sought income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical benefits, and attendant care benefits (ACBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found the applicant was entitled to IRBs for both the pre-104 week and post-104 week periods, as well as the disputed medical benefits, but denied the claim for ongoing ACBs.

The arbitrator also ordered the insurer to pay a $6,500 special award for unreasonably terminating the applicant's IRBs despite objective medical evidence of a severe knee condition.

In a preliminary ruling, the arbitrator removed the insurer's in-house legal department as representatives of record due to a disqualifying conflict of interest, finding that the mandatory firewall between the insurer's accident benefits and tort files had been breached.