Dr. Kurt West

The applicant sought a post-104-week income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffers a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, primarily due to chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's expert assessors over the respondent's assessors, noting that the alternate employment roles proposed by the respondent were not comparable in status or wages.

The applicant was awarded the IRB and interest on overdue payments, but her claim for a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable or vexatious.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident that caused chronic regional pain syndrome, requiring a surgically implanted spinal cord stimulator.

The central issue was whether the applicant's gait derangement should be assessed with the stimulator turned on or off under the AMA Guides.

The Tribunal held that because the stimulator's use could be easily eliminated by turning it off, the assessment must be conducted with it off.

Preferring the applicant's expert evidence, the Tribunal found the applicant required more than one cane when the device was off, resulting in a 40% whole person impairment for gait derangement.

Combined with other ratings, the applicant met the 55% threshold and was deemed catastrophically impaired.