Dr. Tania Henriques

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was whether the appellant suffered a marked impairment in the adaptation domain, largely based on his post-accident cannabis dependence and psychological issues.

The Director's Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's findings that the appellant's pre-accident cannabis use and behavioural issues were similar to his post-accident state, and that his impairment was only moderate.

The appeal was dismissed as the Arbitrator correctly applied the law and her factual findings were not subject to review on appeal.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The core issue was whether his mental and behavioural impairments, specifically his cannabis dependence and adaptation difficulties, constituted a marked impairment (Class 4).

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacking in credibility and preferred the insurer's expert evidence, concluding that the applicant's impairments were only moderate (Class 3) and his combined whole person impairment did not meet the 55% threshold.

The application was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded partial expenses due to the applicant's conduct prolonging the proceeding.