Laura Youm

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment under either Criterion 7 (55% whole person impairment) or Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, noting significant validity concerns and sub-maximal effort during the applicant's assessments.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to enhanced attendant care benefits, having exhausted her non-catastrophic limits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to attendant care benefits, various treatment plans, and a special award.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove the expenses were reasonable and necessary or incurred.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, which found the applicant independent in her activities of daily living and lacking neurological impairment.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for a driving assessment due to undisputed vehicular anxiety, along with applicable interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as a result of a minor traumatic brain injury from a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law regarding the temporal analysis of the GOS-E, by discrediting his neuropsychologist's report because an occupational therapist conducted the GOS-E interview, and by failing to weigh the respondent's occupational therapist's observations.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact.

The adjudicator affirmed that a flexible approach to the timing of the GOS-E is appropriate, that the GOS-E interview must be conducted by a physician or neuropsychologist, and that occupational therapists cannot opine on whether impairments are caused by a brain injury versus other injuries.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate, which overturned an Arbitrator's finding that he suffered a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had previously been involved in two accidents in 2002.

The Director's Delegate found that the applicant was already catastrophically impaired before the 2013 accident and that the Arbitrator erred by applying the material contribution test instead of the 'but for' test.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding the Director's Delegate's decision unreasonable because it relied on an unestablished fact that the applicant was already catastrophically impaired.

The Court also held that the Arbitrator's use of the material contribution test was appropriate in circumstances involving multiple accidents where it is impossible to determine which accident caused the impairment.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his son provided care prior to the applicant's death from pre-existing cancer.

The insurer denied the claim because the applicant never submitted an Assessment of Attendant Care Needs (Form 1).

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the submission of a Form 1 is a mandatory requirement under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to establish entitlement to and the quantum of attendant care benefits.

Claims for a special award and costs were also dismissed.

The insurer appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding that the insured sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The insurer argued the Arbitrator erred in law by applying a quantitative formula to the definition of marked impairment and misapprehended the evidence.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the Arbitrator properly applied a qualitative and contextual assessment of the insured's adaptability domain.

The Delegate further noted that the appeal process is restricted to questions of law, and it is not the Delegate's role to reweigh the evidence or substitute findings of fact.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The sole issue was whether she suffered a marked impairment in the adaptability domain.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the insurer's psychiatric assessment was based on incomplete facts.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's major depression and cognitive difficulties significantly impeded her ability to maintain activities of daily living, continue social relationships, and adapt to stressful circumstances, including parenting and employment.

The applicant was found to be catastrophically impaired within the meaning of the Schedule.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The parties agreed on a 34% physical whole person impairment but disputed the mental and behavioural impairment rating.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the Applicant's psychological expert, finding that the Applicant suffered a marked impairment in adaptation to work environments due to severe panic disorder and agoraphobia.

The arbitrator concluded that the Applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under both clause 2(1.2)(g) (marked mental impairment) and clause 2(1.2)(f) (combined physical and mental impairment of 60%).