Dr. Adriano Persi

The plaintiff sued her former lawyer for negligence and breach of contract arising from an allegedly improvident settlement of her accident benefits claim in May 2014.

The plaintiff claimed the lawyer failed to advise her adequately regarding income replacement benefits, failed to discourage her from settling prematurely, and failed to advise her of the potential for catastrophic impairment designation which would have entitled her to significantly enhanced benefits.

The court found that while the lawyer breached the standard of care in several respects, the plaintiff failed to establish causation because she did not prove she would have acted differently with proper advice.

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by not attempting to set aside the settlement when she became aware of the defect.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to establish that she would have been found catastrophically impaired.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under the ambulatory mobility criterion following a motor vehicle accident.

While the Tribunal accepted that the accident caused a severe and permanent alteration to the structure and function of her right leg, it rejected the SCIM scoring methodologies presented by both parties' experts.

The applicant's experts improperly scored her using a wheeled walker without a swing gait, and the respondent's expert improperly substituted his hand for a cane.

Without valid SCIM scoring evidence, the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

Claims for a walker and a CAT assessment were also dismissed as the applicant made no submissions to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his claims for catastrophic impairment, attendant care benefits, and medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by allowing the respondent's psychiatric expert to testify outside the scope of her report, by limiting the evidence of the applicant's chiropractor regarding psychological impairments, and by failing to properly consider the meaning of 'useful function'.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no errors of law or fact.

The adjudicator held that the respondent's expert evidence was latent in her report, the chiropractor was not qualified to opine on psychological impairments, and the applicant was improperly attempting to relitigate findings of fact.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after witnessing a fatal bus accident, claiming it caused a catastrophic impairment (schizophrenia).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's condition was pre-existing or prodromal.

The Tribunal found that while the accident may have triggered an acute psychotic episode, the applicant was likely prodromal for years prior and failed to prove he sustained a Class 4 marked or Class 5 extreme impairment in the required spheres of function.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for attendant care, rehabilitation support worker services, and other expenses, as the applicant's non-catastrophic policy limits were exhausted and the expenses were either not incurred or not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed complete hearing loss in his left ear and partial hearing loss in his right ear due to a labyrinthine concussion.

He applied for non-earner benefits, housekeeping benefits, and a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's hearing loss and resulting psychological impairments continuously prevented him from engaging in substantially all of his pre-accident activities, entitling him to non-earner benefits.

The arbitrator also concluded that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion (g) of the Schedule, as his psychological impairments resulted in a Class 4 marked impairment in the sphere of social functioning.

The claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed.

The insurer was ordered to pay the applicant's arbitration expenses.