Isabelle Zonenberg

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule due to marked impairments in Adaptation, Activities of Daily Living, and Concentration, Persistence and Pace.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's expert evidence, finding that the applicant's psychological testing was invalid due to negative response bias and that she did not suffer from cognitive impairments or struggle with daily tasks.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, had reached maximum medical recovery, and was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, assessments, interest, or a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various treatment and assessment plans, including neuropsychological and neurological assessments, chiropractic services, massage therapy, acupuncture, and a functional ability assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the disputed plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted a lack of contemporaneous evidence from the applicant's treating family physician supporting the need for the requested interventions, and preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessor who found no objective evidence of residual musculoskeletal impairment.