Dr. Keightley

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) and entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a chiropractic treatment plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant was not catastrophically impaired because her self-reported functional impairments were inconsistent with her history and objective findings, suggesting malingering or exaggeration.

The Tribunal also denied the IRB claim, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in employment, noting she had worked for 10-11 months post-accident.

Claims for the treatment plan, an award, interest, and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment following an ATV accident.

She argued the adjudicator misapplied the 'but for' test, misinterpreted her mental health history, and failed to consider the accident's effect on her employment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the applicant was improperly attempting to reweigh the evidence.

The original adjudicator properly applied the causation test, reasonably relied on the respondent's psychiatric expert regarding the applicant's pre-existing autism spectrum disorder, and was entitled to place less weight on the applicant's psychological and occupational therapy evidence because those experts lacked critical pre-accident records.