Dr. Kelly Benn

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment (CAT) due to psychological injuries, including PTSD and a relapse of Major Depressive Disorder.

The respondent denied the CAT designation based on its assessors' conclusions that the applicant suffered only moderate impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's assessors, finding that the respondent's psychiatric assessment lacked thoroughness and failed to properly consider the applicant's reduced functioning in activities of daily living.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant sustained a Class 4 (marked) impairment in at least one area of functioning and therefore met the definition of catastrophic impairment under the Schedule.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to anonymize her name and limit public access to the adjudicative records due to the sensitive nature of her mental health information.

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, were injured in a low-speed motor vehicle accident.

The son claimed the accident caused chronic pain syndrome and depression, disabling him from his employment as a security technician.

The mother claimed the accident caused a left shoulder impairment that prevented her from performing housekeeping and self-care.

The court found both plaintiffs met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act, having sustained permanent serious impairments of important functions.

The court awarded damages for pain and suffering, past and future income loss, future care, and housekeeping/attendant care.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming for dietician services, rehabilitation support worker services, and physiotherapy.

The insurer denied the benefits based on an insurer's examination concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the insurer's medical evidence flawed and accepted the applicant's evidence that accident-related weight gain was a barrier to recovery, granting the dietician and physiotherapy claims.

The claim for a rehabilitation support worker was dismissed as the proposed services were not clearly linked to the expert's recommendations.