Dr. Jihad Abouali

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, occupational therapy, psychological counselling, kinesiology, and psychotherapy.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits as they were not incurred.

However, the Tribunal approved the treatment plans for occupational therapy, psychological counselling, and virtual kinesiology, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the recommendations of various assessors and treatment providers.

The plan for psychotherapy by a registered nurse was denied as redundant.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought a determination that she was catastrophically impaired under Criterions 7 and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, along with payment for disputed treatment and assessment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's expert on visual impairment failed to follow the AMA Guides' testing methods, resulting in the rejection of the 24% WPI rating for diplopia.

The Tribunal also adjusted the applicant's psychological impairment ratings, finding them inconsistent with her demonstrated functional abilities.

Consequently, the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under either criterion.

The claims for psychological services and catastrophic impairment assessments were dismissed for lack of evidence demonstrating they were reasonable and necessary.

The respondent's request for costs due to the applicant's late withdrawal of Criterion 4 was also dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under criteria 7 and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, along with various medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's expert evidence regarding her physical and mental/behavioural whole person impairment (WPI) ratings to be unreliable, preferring the respondent's experts who correctly applied the AMA Guides.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the 55% WPI threshold under criterion 7, nor did she demonstrate marked impairments in three functional domains under criterion 8.

As the applicant's non-catastrophic benefit limits were exhausted, all claims for disputed benefits, awards, and interest were dismissed.