Dr. Peterkin

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, an award, and interest.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting that her treating family doctor and psychiatrist's records did not support her claims of physical or psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's section 44 examination reports, which concluded the applicant suffered no ongoing accident-related impairments.

Consequently, the claims for the non-earner benefit and the treatment plans were dismissed, along with the claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for medical cannabis and nutritionist services following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that either treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 examiners, who concluded that medical cannabis was contraindicated and unsupported by guidelines, and that nutritionist services were unnecessary given the applicant's stable weight.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment due to a mild traumatic brain injury and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 6 (Glasgow Outcome Scale) because she maintained some independence and employment.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant sustained a marked impairment in adaptation under Criterion 8 due to her somatic symptom disorder and cognitive challenges.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits of $1,561.89 per month, various treatment plans, and interest, but denied the claim for 24/7 attendant care and a special award under Regulation 664.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits and a catastrophic impairment (CAT) designation following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the accident contributed to the applicant's psychological impairment, the applicant's self-reports were not credible due to significant inconsistencies regarding his pre-accident health and functional status.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning and therefore did not meet the CAT threshold.

All claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care, and medical benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable, necessary, or incurred.