Dr. Biederman

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact in assessing her social functioning impairment under the AMA Guides.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal properly applied the AMA Guides, appropriately weighed the expert medical evidence, and made no error of law or fact that would have led to a different result.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (Criterion 8) due to psychological impairments following a motor vehicle accident, as well as entitlement to a treatment plan for optometric services.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had marked impairments in Concentration, Persistence and Pace, and Adaptation, she did not meet the threshold of three marked impairments or one extreme impairment required for catastrophic designation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for optometric services, preferring the respondent's ophthalmological assessment that found no accident-related ocular sequelae over the applicant's neuro-optometrist report.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs) and an occupational therapy assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant could work in alternative occupations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a 63-year-old self-employed hairdresser with significant physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable alternative employment.

The Tribunal awarded the IRBs and the cost of the occupational therapy assessment, along with interest.

The applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 and costs was dismissed.