Dr. Anson Liu

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit (NEB), medical benefits, and travel expenses.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that his pre-existing conditions were the primary cause of his impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the NEB, relying on medical evidence that his physical and psychological impairments continuously prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also approved the physiotherapy treatment plan and partial travel expenses, but denied the psychotherapy treatment plan, an award for unreasonable delay, and costs.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation due to psychological issues including depression and anxiety.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, finding that the applicant's impairments were moderate (Class 3) rather than marked (Class 4).

The Tribunal noted the applicant's ability to maintain relationships, travel, manage her children's schedules, and handle personal affairs, concluding she did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB), attendant care benefits (ACB), and various treatment plans following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7, concluding his combined physical and mental impairment rating was 40%.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, dismissing the claim for post-104-week IRB.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and had exhausted non-catastrophic limits, the claims for ACB and treatment plans were also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired.

Following the hearing, the respondent's own assessors conducted a Catastrophic Multidisciplinary Assessment and concluded the applicant met the catastrophic threshold under Criterion 8.

The Tribunal admitted this new evidence under Rule 18.2(d), finding it could not have been obtained previously and would have affected the result.

The Tribunal varied its decision, finding the applicant catastrophically impaired based on the new medical evidence.