Dr. Chandrasena

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's key expert witness, who failed to attend the hearing for cross-examination, citing procedural fairness.

Relying on surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's claims of severe impairment and social isolation, the Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

Consequently, claims for medication expenses beyond the non-catastrophic limit, a special award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as her psychological and physical impairments did not meet the threshold of three or more marked impairments under Criterion 8.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for attendant care benefits, finding that the applicant failed to prove her spouse suffered an economic loss to provide the care, and therefore the expenses were not incurred.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued the adjudicator committed a material breach of procedural fairness by failing to qualify her expert as a chronic pain expert, placing little weight on uncontested reports, and incorrectly interpreting the AMA Guides.

The applicant also alleged errors of law regarding the consideration of pain-based limitations and the application of the multidisciplinary approach.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness or errors of law, noting that the original decision properly weighed the evidence and correctly applied the relevant legal principles.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural impairments) following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued she sustained marked impairments in concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including her own testimony and her assessors' reports, lacked objective testing and failed to account for significant pre-existing psychological issues and unrelated physical degeneration.

Preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary and objective assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant demonstrated adaptability and sustained functionality in her daily life, college attendance, and household management.

The application for catastrophic impairment designation was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) due to a mental or behavioural disorder following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, which she claimed aggravated pre-existing concussion symptoms from a 2014 work incident.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant suffers from somatic symptom disorder and functional limitations, her impairments in activities of daily living do not rise to the level of a marked (Class 4) impairment under the AMA Guides.

Consequently, she did not meet the criteria for CAT status.

As her non-CAT policy limits were exhausted, her claims for various medical and attendant care benefits were dismissed as moot.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $2,000 in costs due to the respondent's excessive and unnecessary objections during the hearing.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The dispute centered on whether she suffered a class 4 marked impairment in the Adaptation domain due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The Tribunal applied the three-step test from Pastore and preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding her credible regarding her chronic pain, social withdrawal, and inability to cope with stress.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's functioning in adaptation was significantly impeded, meeting the threshold for a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including weekly income benefits and housekeeping expenses, following a 1991 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits in 1994.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility due to contradictory statements made to the Workers' Compensation Board, the insurer, and her doctors regarding the cause of her disability.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant failed to establish she was disabled as a result of chronic pain caused by the accident, and that her cognitive impairment was more likely due to prescription drug dependency than a traumatic brain injury.

The claims for benefits were dismissed, but the applicant was awarded 75% of her reasonable legal fees and all disbursements.