Dr. Ricki Ladowsky-Brooks

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under both Criterion 6 (64% whole person impairment) and Criterion 2 (severe and permanent alteration of lower extremities with a SCIM score of 4).

The Tribunal awarded incurred attendant care benefits from October 2021 to March 2022 but denied ongoing attendant care benefits as the applicant failed to provide an updated Form 1 reflecting her current needs.

Claims for four specific treatment plans were dismissed as the applicant provided no evidence to support them.

Interest was awarded on all overdue payments.

The Tribunal initiated a review of its initial and reconsideration decisions under Rule 18.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.

The review focused on whether the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness by relying on the respondent's expert reports when the respondent did not call those experts for cross-examination.

The Vice-Chair found that admitting and relying upon the untested expert evidence, which was pivotal in denying the applicant's claim of catastrophic impairment, constituted a material breach of procedural fairness.

The initial and reconsideration decisions were cancelled in part, and a rehearing was ordered for the determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 and the claim for attendant care benefits.

The applicant, a self-employed bicycle delivery person, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal assessed the applicant's mental and behavioural impairments across four spheres of function.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts, the Tribunal found the applicant sustained marked impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied his claim for ongoing Income Replacement Benefits (IRB).

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness, ignored new medical evidence, and erred in fact regarding the MIG and the IRB dispute period.

The adjudicator found no breach of procedural fairness and held that the new evidence could have been obtained prior to the hearing.

While the adjudicator agreed the Tribunal made a factual error regarding the dates in dispute for the IRB claim, upon reviewing the evidence for the corrected period (February 26, 2020 to April 23, 2023), the adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The reconsideration was allowed in part to correct the dates, but the claim for ongoing IRB was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit and alleged the applicant was barred from receiving Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) due to a material misrepresentation regarding the use of his vehicle for ride-sharing.

The Tribunal found the respondent failed to prove the vehicle was used for ride-sharing, so the applicant was not barred from IRB and the respondent was not entitled to repayment of previously paid IRB.

However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the respondent's medical experts over the applicant's expert due to a lack of objective evidence.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed medical and attendant care benefits.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criteria 4 and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident, as well as entitlement to psychological services.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet Criterion 4 because there were no positive findings of a traumatic brain injury on recognized diagnostic imaging.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not meet Criterion 8, as the evidence demonstrated she had been working part-time as a personal support worker, which was inconsistent with a Class 5 extreme impairment in work functioning.

The claim for psychological services was dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant was injured as a pedestrian when struck by a transit bus, sustaining orthopaedic injuries and a mild traumatic brain injury.

She applied for non-earner benefits, medical benefits, and the cost of assessments, which the insurer denied.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's physical injuries, combined with resulting chronic pain, depression, and cognitive deficits, continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The arbitrator awarded the non-earner benefits, the disputed medical benefits, and the costs of the neuropsychological assessments, but denied the applicant's request for a special award.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle rollover accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The Insurer disputed the claim.

At arbitration, multiple medical experts testified regarding the Applicant's physical, mental, and behavioural impairments.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant sustained a Class 4 (marked) impairment in Concentration, Pace and Persistence, and Adaptability, relying on the Applicant's neuropsychologist.

The arbitrator also found that the Applicant would have met the 55% Whole Person Impairment threshold based on a combination of physical and psychological ratings.

The arbitrator concluded that the Applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment within the meaning of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.