Dr. Natasha Williams

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered from accident-related mental and behavioural disorders, he did not sustain a marked impairment in the spheres of activities of daily living or social functioning.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, noting the applicant maintained independence in personal care and continued to have meaningful social interactions with family and friends.

The claims for unapproved balances of assessment plans, interest, and an award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under criteria 7 and 8, attendant care benefits, and physiotherapy services.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, preferring the respondent's medical assessors and surveillance evidence which demonstrated the applicant maintained an active lifestyle and had significant pre-existing psychiatric conditions that were not properly accounted for by his own assessors.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for attendant care and physiotherapy, finding the applicant was capable of managing his daily activities independently and had reached maximum therapeutic benefit from prior treatments.

The applicant sought a determination that she was catastrophically impaired under Criterions 7 and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, along with payment for disputed treatment and assessment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's expert on visual impairment failed to follow the AMA Guides' testing methods, resulting in the rejection of the 24% WPI rating for diplopia.

The Tribunal also adjusted the applicant's psychological impairment ratings, finding them inconsistent with her demonstrated functional abilities.

Consequently, the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under either criterion.

The claims for psychological services and catastrophic impairment assessments were dismissed for lack of evidence demonstrating they were reasonable and necessary.

The respondent's request for costs due to the applicant's late withdrawal of Criterion 4 was also dismissed.