Darlene Gillanders

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming the balance of a treatment plan for a hot tub and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal found the hot tub was reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's accident-related chronic back pain and mobility limitations, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating occupational therapist over the insurer's assessors.

However, the claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide evidence that the expenses were actually incurred, as required by the Schedule.

The applicant sought funding for an in-home attendant care assessment more than 104 weeks after a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan because the applicant had not been designated catastrophically impaired, barring entitlement to attendant care benefits beyond the 104-week mark under s. 20(2)(a) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that absent a catastrophic impairment designation, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award attendant care benefits post-104 weeks, rendering the assessment premature and not reasonable or necessary.

The application was dismissed.