Dr. D. Becker

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological and neurological injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a catastrophic impairment, as her mental and behavioural impairments did not reach the marked level in three or more spheres of function.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, noting the applicant's self-reported independence in activities of daily living.

Claims for attendant care benefits, a neurological assessment, unapproved assessment costs, and an award for unreasonable withholding of benefits were all dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits, cost of examinations, interest, and an award following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, specifically a Class 4 Marked impairment in the domain of Activities of Daily Living due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits at $507.03 per month for feeding, along with the costs of an occupational therapy situational assessment and an in-home attendant care assessment.

Claims for a triage assessment, an award under Regulation 664, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits and cost of examinations following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, specifically a Class 4 Marked impairment in the domain of Activities of Daily Living due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits at $507.03 per month retroactively to October 2009, along with interest.

The applicant was also awarded the costs of specific occupational therapy and attendant care assessments.

Claims for a triage assessment, a Regulation 664 award, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was rear-ended in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the accident caused the applicant's psychological impairments.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's psychiatrist, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a marked impairment (Class 4) in three of four functional domains (Activities of Daily Living, Concentration, Persistence and Pace, and Adaptation).

The applicant was deemed catastrophically impaired.

However, claims for specific medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to provide the disputed treatment plans or prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that he was catastrophically impaired under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator considered whether the applicant suffered a marked or extreme impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder, or a whole person impairment of 55 percent or more.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the insurer's experts, finding that the applicant's mental and behavioural impairments were mild to moderate.

Combining the physical and psychological impairments, the arbitrator determined the applicant's whole person impairment was 31 percent.

The application for a catastrophic impairment determination was dismissed.