Dr. Francis Farhadi

The applicant sought a post-104-week income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffers a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, primarily due to chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's expert assessors over the respondent's assessors, noting that the alternate employment roles proposed by the respondent were not comparable in status or wages.

The applicant was awarded the IRB and interest on overdue payments, but her claim for a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable or vexatious.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as she did not demonstrate marked impairments in three out of four domains of functioning.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, who found the applicant capable of living independently and managing daily activities.

The applicant's claims for attendant care benefits, housekeeping benefits, and various treatment plans were also dismissed, as she failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary or incurred in accordance with the Schedule.

The applicant, a 12-year-old, was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under s. 3(2)(d)(i) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule based on Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 9 or less.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant did not sustain a brain impairment and that the low GCS scores were invalid because they were confounded by medication and intubation, or recorded incorrectly.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a concussion, which qualifies as a brain impairment.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Liu, the Tribunal held that the GCS criteria is a legal test, not a medical one, and declined to read in modifiers excluding scores affected by medication or intubation.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's expert evidence attempting to invalidate the recorded scores, concluding the applicant met the criteria for catastrophic impairment.