Dr. B. Meikle

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while pushing her infant in a grocery cart and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment due to psychological injuries, along with ongoing Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered a mental or behavioural disorder caused by the accident, her impairments were moderate rather than marked, and thus she did not meet the catastrophic impairment threshold.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for post-104 week IRBs, finding she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment based on vocational and psychological assessments.

Claims for specific physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment plans were dismissed for lack of evidence, though the insurer was ordered to pay HST on an approved psychological treatment plan.

A claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought catastrophic impairment benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer requested five in-person insurer's examinations.

The applicant agreed to three but refused to attend an in-person physiatry examination and a cardiology examination, arguing they were excessive and unreasonable.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was precluded from proceeding with her application due to her non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the in-person physiatry examination was not 'reasonably necessary' under section 44 of the Schedule, as it was overly intrusive and the insurer already had sufficient information from other assessments to conduct a paper review.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with her claim.