Dr. Peric-Todorovic

The applicant sought a determination that she suffered a catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the Pastore test and the Sabadash 'but for' causation test, finding that while the accident caused some psychological impairment, it did not result in a marked or extreme impairment in any of the four domains of functioning.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, concluding the applicant suffered only moderate impairments.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, her claims for various statutory accident benefits, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were uncomplicated soft-tissue injuries and that she failed to provide compelling evidence that any pre-existing condition prevented her recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence regarding the lack of a psychological impairment, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's expert reports.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were found not to be reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to physical and psychological injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence lacked specificity and was contradicted by inconsistent self-reporting and surveillance evidence showing him jet skiing and lifting weights.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's assessments, concluding the applicant failed to meet the stringent threshold for the benefit.