Dr. Jeffrey Karp

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in February 2020 and subsequently involved in a second accident in December 2020.

He sought pre- and post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and approval for occupational therapy treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the first accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's impairments, which were exacerbated by the second accident.

Relying on the evidence of the applicant's treating family doctor, chiropractor, and occupational therapist, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident tasks as a courier driver, and a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal awarded the IRBs and approved the treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, but denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the insurer's denials were based on medical opinions and not unreasonable.

The applicant, a resident of China injured in a tour bus crash in Ontario, sought various statutory accident benefits including non-earner benefits, attendant care, and multiple treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the non-earner benefits due to the applicant's failure to provide an updated disability certificate as reasonably requested by the insurer.

The Tribunal also denied the attendant care benefits and most of the treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving they were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal approved a treatment plan for psychological services, finding the applicant continued to experience significant psychological symptoms that warranted further treatment.

The claim for a bad faith award was dismissed.

The applicant, a Chinese tourist, was involved in a single-vehicle bus accident in Ontario and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment including a traumatic brain injury and severe psychological impairments.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing her ongoing impairments were related to pre-existing conditions and post-accident falls in China.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she sustained a traumatic brain injury in the accident, attributing her cognitive and physical decline to a probable cerebrovascular event and subsequent falls.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for catastrophic impairment, non-earner benefits, and most medical and rehabilitation benefits.

However, the Tribunal awarded CN ¥159,705 yuan for incurred attendant care services and CN ¥612.32 yuan for specific prescription medications, finding the respondent had sufficient information to adjust those claims and the applicant had proven they were incurred.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The central issues were whether he sustained a catastrophic impairment based on a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 or less, and whether he was entitled to post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and attendant care benefits.

The Insurer argued the low GCS score was caused by a pre-accident drug overdose and high blood sugar, not a brain injury.

The arbitrator rejected this theory, finding the Applicant suffered a traumatic brain injury resulting in a GCS score of 9, meeting the catastrophic impairment definition.

The arbitrator also found the Applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to cognitive and physical deficits, awarding ongoing IRBs.

The Applicant was deemed eligible for attendant care benefits pending a new Form 1.

Claims for a special award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The insurer argued the applicant's low Glasgow Coma Scale score was due to a pre-accident drug overdose and high blood sugar, not a brain injury from the accident.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's theory, finding the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a traumatic brain injury.

The arbitrator also awarded ongoing income replacement benefits and attendant care benefits, but declined to order a special award against the insurer.