Dr. Friedman

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and funding for various treatment plans.

The respondent denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical evidence showed little difference between his pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal also found that attendant care benefits were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the multidisciplinary assessments of the respondent's examiners over the applicant's single nursing assessment.

The treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services were denied as the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery and the respondent had properly approved the maximum permitted fees under the Professional Services Guideline.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and awarded damages by a jury.

The defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory requirement of a permanent serious impairment.

The court reviewed medical evidence showing the plaintiff suffered from chronic pain, depression, and cognitive deficits from a mild traumatic brain injury, which prevented him from completing high school or working.

The court found the injuries substantially interfered with his usual activities of daily living and were continuous and permanent.

The defendant's motion was dismissed.