Dr. D. Milne

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident and subsequent knee surgery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life for the claimed period, as contemporaneous medical evidence indicated excellent recovery.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant no longer required attendant care services during the disputed period and failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including physical therapy, online classes, optometric vision therapy, reading glasses, and moving expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary or causally linked to the accident.

Specifically, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence regarding the vision therapy and found the moving expenses were not payable under the Schedule as the decision to move predated the accident.

The applicant sought a determination that her impairments from a motor vehicle accident met the 55% whole person impairment (WPI) threshold for catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator evaluated conflicting medical evidence regarding the applicant's neurological and psychological impairments, including sleep disorders, mental status, and somatic disorders.

While the adjudicator preferred much of the applicant's medical evidence and found the insurer's assessors had underestimated the impairments, the final combined WPI was determined to be 51%.

As this fell short of the 55% threshold, the application was dismissed.