3 total
Applicant denied catastrophic impairment status but awarded 25% penalty against insurer for unreasonable delay.
The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to attendant care benefits and a special award for unreasonable delay.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the CAT threshold under Criterion 8, as she only demonstrated moderate, rather than marked, impairments in the spheres of functioning.
The claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the expenses were not incurred.
However, the Tribunal granted a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed and withheld payment of income replacement benefits and treatment plans.
The respondent was ordered to pay an award equal to 25% of the delayed benefits.
Non-earner benefits denied; applicant failed to prove impairments were caused by the subject accident.
The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a September 2022 motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant's impairments stemmed from pre-existing depression and a prior accident in June 2022.
The Tribunal applied the 'but for' causation test and the Heath framework, finding the applicant failed to prove her impairments were caused by the September accident.
The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 assessors, who properly compared the applicant's functioning before and after both accidents, over the applicant's section 25 assessors, who failed to review pre-accident records or account for the prior accident.
The application was dismissed.
Application for catastrophic impairment designation and statutory accident benefits dismissed.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental or behavioural impairment).
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, as she did not demonstrate a marked impairment in at least three of the four spheres of functioning.
The Tribunal also denied the applicant's claims for attendant care benefits, finding she had not incurred the expenses and did not require the care, as well as various treatment plans and assessments.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.