Dr. Lopo

The applicant, a minor injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought $4,099.25 for an occupational therapy treatment plan for tutoring services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the tutoring was reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident, noting that medical evidence pointed to ADHD rather than accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial notice complied with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a treatment plan for physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the pre-104 test for IRBs, as her accident-related physical and psychological impairments, combined with her age and pre-existing conditions, resulted in a substantial inability to perform her essential tasks as a cleaner.

However, the IRB amount was adjusted to $4.75 per week due to the age 65 ramp-down provision.

The applicant failed to prove entitlement to post-104 IRBs, as she did not establish a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

Claims for an award and costs were dismissed, and the treatment plan was found to be no longer in dispute.

The court was asked to approve a settlement for a minor plaintiff, Allythiah Thomas, arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The proposed settlement allocated $50,000 to Allythiah's claim and included legal fees based on a 30% contingency fee.

The court declined to approve the settlement due to concerns regarding the lack of an up-to-date expert medical report confirming the plaintiff's maximum medical recovery and future prognosis.

Additionally, the court found the proposed 30% contingency fee inappropriate given the minimal disbursements incurred by counsel, suggesting a range of 10% to 15% would be more suitable.

The applicant sought payment for a neurocognitive assessment, a psychological assessment, and various other expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the neurocognitive assessment was reasonable as it was intended to help the applicant decide whether to bring a claim for catastrophic impairment, but capped the payable amount at $2,000 plus tax.

The claims for the psychological assessment and other expenses were dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, and the medical evidence provided by the applicant was found to be inconsistent and lacking credibility.