Dr. Tugg

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and various statutory accident benefits, including attendant care and housing modifications.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, noting extensive pre-existing psychiatric and behavioural issues, including prior traumatic brain injuries and a need for 24/7 supervisory care that predated the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, finding the applicant's functional impairments were not caused by the subject accident.

All claims for benefits, assessments, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) beyond the 104-week mark, and funding for a psychological and neurological assessment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited, preferring the respondent's insurer examinations which found only soft-tissue injuries and no psychological inability to work.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plans, finding the psychological assessment fees exceeded the Guideline and the neurological assessment was not supported by contemporaneous medical records.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant, Anderson Tung, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found him incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medications due to his inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of his decision.

The Board's finding was based on evidence of his delusions and denial of mental illness.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision under a reasonableness standard, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the appellant lacked capacity to appreciate the consequences of his treatment decision.