Leslie Hisey

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under criteria 7 and 8, attendant care benefits, and physiotherapy services.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, preferring the respondent's medical assessors and surveillance evidence which demonstrated the applicant maintained an active lifestyle and had significant pre-existing psychiatric conditions that were not properly accounted for by his own assessors.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for attendant care and physiotherapy, finding the applicant was capable of managing his daily activities independently and had reached maximum therapeutic benefit from prior treatments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's key expert witness, who failed to attend the hearing for cross-examination, citing procedural fairness.

Relying on surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's claims of severe impairment and social isolation, the Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

Consequently, claims for medication expenses beyond the non-catastrophic limit, a special award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to various attendant care benefits and treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal evaluated the applicant's impairments under Criterion 7 (Whole Person Impairment) and Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal rejected several of the applicant's physical impairment ratings due to a lack of causal evidence and methodological flaws, concluding the applicant did not meet the 55% WPI threshold.

Under Criterion 8, the Tribunal found the applicant had only mild impairments in activities of daily living and social functioning, failing to meet the threshold of three marked or one extreme impairment.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and had exhausted his non-CAT limits, the claims for attendant care and treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8, as her psychological impairments significantly impeded useful functioning in concentration, persistence, and pace.

The Tribunal awarded post-104 income replacement benefits and partial attendant care benefits, but denied the disputed treatment plans as the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care and housekeeping benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological issues, primarily anxiety, were pre-existing and related to prior health crises, not the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment under either the 55% whole person impairment threshold or the marked impairment in adaptation criterion, noting her ability to travel, socialize, and adapt to her pain.

Because the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, her claims for attendant care and housekeeping benefits were dismissed as time-barred and not payable.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she was able to drive and travel internationally post-accident.

The Tribunal also denied attendant care benefits, preferring the respondent's detailed assessments over the applicant's unsupported occupational therapy assessment.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain.

The medical evidence, including insurer's examinations, demonstrated that the applicant had functional abilities to complete most activities of daily living.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought weekly caregiver benefits following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits in September 2012.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, noting numerous inconsistencies regarding her injuries, substance abuse, and the fact that her children had been removed from her care by Family and Children's Services in 2011 for reasons unrelated to the accident.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the insurer's assessors and concluded the applicant was not the primary caregiver at the time of the accident, did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and did not incur the claimed caregiving expenses.

The application was dismissed.