Dr. A. Zielinsky

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to attendant care benefits and the costs of chronic pain and orthopaedic assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to further attendant care benefits beyond what the respondent had already paid, as the services were no longer reasonable or necessary after January 15, 2015.

The Tribunal approved the chronic pain assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary given the applicant's ongoing pain and psychological injuries.

However, the orthopaedic assessment was denied as unnecessary, since the applicant's physical injuries were already well-documented and the chronic pain assessment would sufficiently address the ongoing issues.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal applied the AMA Guides and the three-step test from Pastore.

While finding the applicant suffered a psychological impairment caused by the accident, the Tribunal concluded she did not suffer a marked (Class 4) impairment in any of the four functional domains.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary medical evidence over the applicant's experts, noting credibility concerns and the applicant's failure on performance validity tests.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a T-bone collision and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for two years.

The insurer terminated IRBs at the 104-week mark, arguing the applicant could return to suitable employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's accident-related soft tissue injuries aggravated pre-existing arthritis in his hand, resulting in chronic pain and functional limitations.

Given his physical restrictions, limited education, and lack of transferable skills, the Tribunal concluded he suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment and was entitled to ongoing IRBs.

Claims for further chiropractic and massage treatments were dismissed as not reasonable or necessary.